A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions common in clinical practice. We developed a multi-domain red teaming framework evaluating eleven contemporary LLMs across 690 clinically grounded scenarios spanning nine domains and over 150 subcategories. Scenarios incorporated adversarial transformations, and responses were assessed using a seven-dimension rubric with
Record details
Published: 15 April 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness · Safety & alignment · Healthcare
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Below-Chance Blindness: Prompted Underperformance in Small LLMs Produces Positional Bias Rather than Answer Avoidance
arXiv · 28 April 2026
Resolving the bias-precision paradox with stochastic causal representation learning for personalized medicine
arXiv · 7 May 2026
Graph Alignment Topology as an Inductive Bias for Grounding Detection
arXiv · 21 May 2026
MMed-Bench-IR: A Heterogeneous Benchmark for Multilingual Medical Information Retrieval
arXiv · 23 June 2026
X-FEMR: A Token-level Explainable Approach for Electronic Health Records Foundation Models using Transformer-based Models
arXiv · 7 July 2026
Shape-Based Inductive Bias for Glioma Grading from Tumor Contours
arXiv cs.LG · 27 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (15 April 2026), “A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models,” evidence record 5822, https://ethics.ai/record/5822 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.