Back

Developing and Testing an Engineering Framework for Curiosity-Driven and Humble AI in Clinical Decision Support

Arslan, J.; Benke, K.; Cajas, S.; Castro, R.; Celi, L. A.; Cruz Suarez, G. A.; Delos Reyes, R.; Engelmann, J.; Ercole, A.; Hilel, A.; Kalla, M.; Kinyera, L.; Lange, M.; Lunde, T. M.; Meni, M. J.; Ocampo Osorio, F.; Premo, A.; Sedlakova, J.; Vig, P.

2026-02-07 health informatics
10.64898/2026.02.06.26345664 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWe present BODHI (Balanced, Open-minded, Diagnostic, Humble, and Inquisitive), an engineering framework for curiosity-driven and humble clinical decision support AI. Despite growing capabilities, large language models (LLMs) often express inappropriate confidence, conflating statistical pattern recognition with genuine medical understanding. BODHI addresses this through a dual-reflective architecture that: (1) decomposes epistemic uncertainty into task-specific dimensions, and (2) constrains model responses using virtue-based stance rules derived from a Virtue Activation Matrix. MethodsWe validate the framework through controlled evaluation on 200 clinical vignettes from HealthBench Hard, assessing GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4.1-mini across 5 random seeds (1,800 total observations). Statistical analysis included bootstrap resampling, paired t-tests, and effect size computation (Supplementary Materials S3) FindingsBODHI significantly improved overall clinical response quality (GPT-4.1-mini: +17.3pp, p < 0.0001, Cohens d = 0.50; GPT-4o-mini: +7.4pp, p < 0.0001, Cohens d = 0.22) while achieving very large effect sizes on curiosity (context-seeking rate: Cohens d = 16.38 and 19.54) and humility (hedging: d = 5.80 for GPT-4.1-mini) metrics. Crucially, 97.3% of GPT-4.1-mini responses and 73.5% of GPT-4o-mini responses included appropriate clarifying questions, compared to 7.8% and 0.0% at baseline, demonstrating the frameworks effectiveness in eliciting information-gathering behavior. InterpretationThese findings suggest LLMs can be reliably constrained to operate within epistemic boundaries when provided with structured uncertainty decomposition and virtue-aligned response rules, offering a pathway toward safer clinical AI deployment.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.