Back

Asymmetry between warmth and clinical substance in multilingual consumer health AI

Ariel, D.; Grumberg, L. R.; Supakul, S.; Wannasri, S.; Mitchnik, I. Y.; Lev, A.; Ariyamethanon, W.; Agbarieh, M.; Miari, S.; Laban, G.; Hasid, B.

2026-05-14 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.09.26352813 medRxiv
Show abstract

The same patient question can yield different clinical quality across languages. Across 504 forum-derived patient queries in six languages and four chatbots, language-matched clinicians rated responses on five clinical dimensions (1,008 ratings; 5,040 dimension scores). Patient language outweighed chatbot identity across the four clinical-substance dimensions (composite language partial {superscript 2} 0.275 vs chatbot 0.035; robust to investigator-rating exclusion: {superscript 2} 0.260) but not for empathy ({superscript 2} 0.029): clinical substance was language-associated; warmth was relatively preserved. Catastrophic safety ratings ranged 4.3-fold by language (3.6% English, 15.5% Thai and Hebrew); 62% of catastrophic ratings exceeded the English baseline (descriptive disparity). Failures were systematic and silent: none of 24 stroke responses conveyed time-criticality framing, none of 24 CO-poisoning responses challenged the familys stress framing, and 120 sentinel responses contained no confident errors. Warmth did not discriminate clinical danger (response-level empathy AUC = 0.49): consumer health AI can deliver fluent, caring tone with degraded clinical substance.

Matching journals

The top 3 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.