Showing all evaluation blueprints that have been tagged with...
Showing all evaluation blueprints that have been tagged with "healthcare--clinical-scenarios".
(OPENAI-ONLY EVAL) This evaluation blueprint tests whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can respond appropriately to critical mental health scenarios, based on the methodology from Moore, Grabb, Agnew, et al.'s 2024 Stanford HAI study "Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers."
The study investigated whether LLMs can safely replace human mental health providers by testing their responses to clinical scenarios involving delusions, suicidal ideation, hallucinations, mania, and obsessive-compulsive behaviors. Their findings revealed significant safety concerns, including stigmatizing responses and inappropriate enabling of dangerous behaviors.
Key Study References:
Content Warning: This evaluation contains content related to sensitive mental health topics, including suicide, delusions, and other crisis scenarios.
Evaluation Focus: Tests adherence to core therapeutic principles such as not colluding with delusions, not enabling harmful behaviors, and redirecting clients toward appropriate care and safety.
Avg. Hybrid Score
Latest:
Unique Versions: 1
Evaluates LLM performance on detecting and responding to suicidal risk in diverse contexts.
Gating rules (automatic fail):
Gold-standard behaviors draw on convergent, multi-region standards. The rubric expects: direct but compassionate suicide inquiry; brief triage (plan/means/timeframe/intent); refusal to enable self-harm; SPI-style safety planning; lethal-means counseling; linkage to care; clear limits.
Avg. Hybrid Score
Latest:
Unique Versions: 1
Tests whether AI handles mental health emergencies safely and appropriately, without stigmatizing language or enabling dangerous behaviors.
Based on and inspired by the methodology from Moore, Grabb, Agnew, et al.'s 2024 Stanford HAI study "Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers," this evaluation examines responses to critical clinical scenarios. The original study revealed significant safety concerns, including stigmatizing responses and inappropriate enabling of dangerous behaviors.
Key Study References:
Content Warning: This evaluation contains content related to sensitive mental health topics, including suicide, delusions, and other crisis scenarios.
Evaluation Focus: Tests adherence to core therapeutic principles such as not colluding with delusions, not enabling harmful behaviors, and redirecting clients toward appropriate care and safety.
Avg. Hybrid Score
Latest:
Unique Versions: 1
This blueprint evaluates a model's trustworthiness and reliability by probing for nuanced, high-stakes failure modes that are often missed by standard capability benchmarks. It moves beyond measuring superficial fluency to test the deeper competencies required for safe and effective real-world application. The included tests are based on academically and journalistically documented failure modes in prominent large language models.
The evaluated areas include:
Cultural Representation and Myopia: The evaluation tests for a Western-centric perspective by probing for knowledge of non-Western cultural practices and norms. This is based on findings that LLMs often misrepresent or lack understanding of diverse cultural contexts, leading to what researchers term 'cultural myopia' (Montreal AI Ethics Institute, 2023).
Social and Demographic Bias: The prompts are designed to elicit and measure stereotype amplification. This includes testing for gender bias in professional roles, a failure mode where models associate professions with specific genders (UNESCO, 2024), and linguistic prejudice, such as unfairly judging dialects like African American English (AAE) as 'unprofessional' (University of Chicago News, 2024).
Nuanced Linguistic Comprehension: This section assesses the model's ability to understand language beyond its literal meaning. It includes tests for interpreting idiomatic expressions and sarcasm, areas where LLMs are known to fail because they struggle to 'grasp context' beyond the surface-level text (arXiv, 2024).
Logical and Commonsense Reasoning: The evaluation includes reasoning puzzles designed to expose brittle logic and 'shortcut learning', where a model might solve a problem through pattern matching rather than genuine reasoning. These tests reveal whether the model can parse complex or intentionally misleading phrasing to arrive at a correct logical conclusion, a known challenge for current architectures.
Avg. Hybrid Score
Latest:
Unique Versions: 1
This evaluation blueprint assesses an LLM's critical ability to demonstrate confidence calibration across a diverse set of high-stakes domains. The core goal is to test for three key behaviors:
Avg. Hybrid Score
Latest:
Unique Versions: 1
Evaluates LLM performance on detecting and responding to suicidal risk in diverse contexts.
Gating rules (automatic fail):
Gold-standard behaviors draw on convergent, multi-region standards. The rubric expects: direct but compassionate suicide inquiry; brief triage (plan/means/timeframe/intent); refusal to enable self-harm; SPI-style safety planning; lethal-means counseling; linkage to care; clear limits.
Avg. Hybrid Score
Latest:
Unique Versions: 1