From Output Errors to Workflow Harm: A Practitioner-Audit Method for LLM-Mediated Research
Austria, D.; McCollister, B.; Lindsey, J. E.; Arowolo, M.; Okon, M.
Show abstract
Objective. Formal large language model (LLM) evaluations score isolated prompts, but clinicians and health-informatics researchers meet model failures inside multi-step workflows where erroneous output can alter procedures or contaminate documents. We present TRACE (Tracking Reliability of AI-generated Conversational Evidence), a practitioner-audit framework for evaluating the downstream workflow reliability of conversational AI. Materials and Methods. A method paper with an empirical demonstration: 45 documentation-positive incidents recorded by one clinician-informatician across scholarly, clinical informatics, and clinical-adjacent workflows over seven weeks, coded with a consequence-based severity rubric, an error definition, a taxonomy crosswalk, and a Response-Audit Scorecard. Three reviewer-authors independently coded a 16-incident subsample; three vendor-blinded AI comparators applied the taxonomy to all 45 incidents. Results. Four categories tied as most frequent: verification failure, factual numerical error, tool-behavior misunderstanding, and citation or reference formatting (n=7 each). Four workflow-harm patterns recurred: procedural propagation, documentary contamination, trust-calibration disruption, and user-borne corrective burden, and one incident carried an estimated $2500 impact. Category agreement across three human reviewer-authors was low (Fleiss {kappa}=0.155), whereas three AI comparators agreed substantially (Fleiss {kappa}=0.632), suggesting taxonomy legibility under standardized conditions even where human judgment diverged. Discussion. Category assignment is comparatively legible, whereas severity and claimed-verification remain judgment-dependent. The claimed-verification gap is a measurable failure mode distinct from hallucination, sycophancy, and over-refusal. Conclusion. Practitioner audits with structured response scoring complement benchmarks by documenting workflow harm as an applied evaluation unit for clinical informatics and public-health work; this is a pilot that motivates, not estimates, error rates or cross-model comparisons.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- From Tool to Teammate: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinician-AI Collaborative Workflows for Diagnosis 93%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 92%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 92%
- Evaluating Anti-LGBTQIA+ Medical Bias in Large Language Models 92%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 91%
- AI-Generated Clinical Summaries: Errors and Susceptibility to Speech and Speaker Variability 90%
- Cracking the Code: A Scoping Review to Unite Disciplines in Tackling Legal Issues in Health Artificial Intelligence 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 92%
- The challenges of replication: a worked example of methods reproducibility using routinely collected healthcare data 92%
- Comparison of local large language models for extraction of signs and symptoms data from electronic health records 91%
"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.