Back

Can large language models approximate human perceptions of disease severity? An evaluation using Global Burden of Disease 2010 disability weights

Ha, Y.; Park, H.; Lee, Y.; Kim, S.; Ahn, S.

2026-05-04 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.02.26352261 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDisability weights (DWs) quantify the severity of health loss and are essential for estimating disability-adjusted life years in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) framework. Conventional DW estimation relies on resource-intensive population surveys that are difficult to update or adapt to emerging health states. Large language models (LLMs) may offer a scalable alternative by approximating human perceptions of disease severity through structured judgment tasks. MethodsThis exploratory study evaluated the alignment between LLM-derived and human-derived DW rankings using 222 health states from GBD 2010. All possible pairwise comparisons (24,531 pairs, each repeated three times) were conducted across four LLMs (GPT-5 mini, GPT-5, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Claude Sonnet 4.5). DWs were estimated via probit regression and evaluated using Spearmans rank correlation and Steigers z test. The effects of prompt language (English vs. Korean), cultural role prompting, and medical specialist role prompting on alignment were examined. Additionally, the Binomial-Logit Indifference-Point (BLIP) estimator was proposed and validated through leave-one-out cross-validation for estimating DWs for health states without established values. ResultsAll four LLMs showed high rank correlation with GBD 2010 DWs (Spearmans {rho} = 0.893 to 0.909), with no significant inter-model differences. Korean-language prompting significantly improved alignment with Korean DWs ({rho} = 0.756 vs. 0.715, p = 0.011), and Korean cultural role prompting improved alignment with both GBD 2010 DWs ({rho} = 0.922 vs. 0.909, p = 0.002) and Korean DWs ({rho} = 0.738 vs. 0.715, p = 0.001). Medical specialist role prompting significantly reduced alignment with GBD 2010 DWs ({rho} = 0.895 vs. 0.909, p = 0.001). BLIP demonstrated strong agreement with GBD 2010 DWs (Pearsons r = 0.862, MAE = 0.066) and produced plausible estimates for Long COVID (mild: 0.020, moderate: 0.298, severe: 0.529). ConclusionsLLMs can approximate human perceptions of disease severity with high rank-order consistency. Prompt language and role framing significantly influenced alignment, with culturally grounded lay prompting enhancing and specialist prompting reducing correspondence with population-based DWs. BLIP provides a practical framework for generating provisional DW estimates for emerging or underrepresented health states when conventional surveys are infeasible.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account 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.