Automated Skill Optimisation for False Presupposition Handling in Cancer Communication: SkillOpt Versus Conventional Prompt Engineering Across Language Models
Khanna, S.
Show abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) may answer cancer questions plausibly while accepting a false presupposition (FP). Prompts that increase FP correction may also challenge questions in which no FP is present (NFP). We compared SkillOpt, an automated skill-optimisation method developed by Microsoft Research, with conventional prompt engineering across models. Methods: Using the physician-verified Cancer-Myth benchmark, GPT-5.4 optimised a written skill for GPT-4o in three independent 12-step executions. Training used 117 FP questions. Rewrites were selected by combined accuracy on a validation set of 58 FP and 30 NFP questions, then tested on 410 unseen FP questions. A separate GPT-4o judged responses. Across seven LLMs, we compared no correction instruction, a deliberately strong seven-example few-shot prompt, three GPT-5.4-generated instruction-only prompts, and full and compact SkillOpt skills. Further tests examined portability, new questions and valid clinical assumptions. Results: SkillOpt increased GPT-4o FP correction from 15.4-17.6% to 82.2-90.5%, gains of 66.3-72.9 percentage points (95% bootstrap confidence intervals 61.7-77.3; all Holm-adjusted p<0.001). Only two or three rewrites were accepted per execution. The first full skill achieved 92.7-96.6% correction on three recipient models but 6.3-16.3% on two weaker models, where few-shot prompting achieved 44.6-54.6%. On Gemini 3.5 Flash and GPT-5.6 Luna, compact SkillOpt retained 90.0-92.9% correction while increasing NFP accuracy from 59.2-79.2% with the full skill to 85.8-93.3%. Both approaches sometimes challenged valid clinical assumptions. Conclusions: SkillOpt produced large, repeatable gains, but it was neither universally portable nor free of over-correction. Automated and conventional prompts should be compared for each intended model using tests of both FP correction and NFP accuracy. Compact SkillOpt may improve this balance on capable models.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- From Tool to Teammate: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinician-AI Collaborative Workflows for Diagnosis 95%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 93%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of local large language models for extraction of signs and symptoms data from electronic health records 92%
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medical Examinations:A Scoping Review Protocol 92%
- Protocol For Human Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Clinical Consultations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Measuring the Quality of AI-Generated Clinical Notes: A Systematic Review and Experimental Benchmark of Evaluation Methods 93%
- The role of natural language processing in cancer care: a systematic scoping review with narrative synthesis 92%
- Building Large-Scale Registries from Unstructured Clinical Notes using a Low-Resource Natural Language Processing Pipeline 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Low adherence to existing model reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models 90%
- Crowdfunding Medical Care: A Comparison of Online Medical Fundraising in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States 88%
- Prospective and External Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict In-Hospital Mortality 87%
"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.