AI-assisted rheumatology triage changes with referral framing

Clicks: 2
ID: 324945
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #62 of 198 articles by views in Lara D. Veeken

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 198 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Two in three US physicians now use healthcare AI, and large language models (LLMs) are entering the triage workflows that determine which patients reach rheumatology and how quickly. We aimed to test whether nine prespecified cues in referral notes, patient descriptions and demographics shift AI-assisted triage decisions when the underlying clinical information is unchanged. Methods We conducted a controlled, physician-validated experiment across 30 physician-authored rheumatology vignettes, each independently rephrased three times (90 case variants). We tested five LLMs from three providers - Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI - under nine dimensions spanning demographics, clinical context, and communication framing, with 57 controlled contextual modifications, four system-prompt personas, and five repetitions per cell, yielding more than 200,000 model queries. Sixteen clinical fields were graded against physician-validated ground truth, with excellent inter-rater agreement (Fleiss’ kappa=0.92). Results Baseline composite concordance with expert ground truth was high at 0.869. We had expected sociodemographic cues to be the strongest source of distortion. Instead, the largest shifts came from how the case was framed and described. When patients were described as anxious, models attributed symptoms to psychological rather than organic causes nearly three times as often as at baseline (13.1% vs 4.5%; odds ratio 3.2 versus stoic framing), a shift that risks relabeling organic disease as functional. Clinician anchoring in the referral note reduced concordance, consistently across models and rephrasings and significantly for acuity (dismissive anchor, vignette-level p = 0.01), mainly by downgrading urgency. In contrast, race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language barrier produced no detectable effect, including in mixed-effects models that accounted for repeated vignette use. Conclusion Although baseline concordance with specialist ground truth was high, it was readily disrupted by how referral notes were worded and how patients described their symptoms, not by patient demographics. Before AI-assisted triage enters rheumatology referral pathways, systems should separate objective clinical evidence from interpretive framing, and urgency and psychological attribution should be treated as auditable safety signals.
Reference Key
openalex_W7171674233 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Mahmud Omar, Mohammad E. Naffaa, Reem Agbareia, Fadi Hassan, Abdulla Watad, Helana Jeries, Alon Gorenshtein, Yiftach Barash, Olga R. Brook, Girish N. Nadkarni, Eyal Klang
Journal Lara D. Veeken
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/rheumatology/keag414
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keag414
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.