ArticleScientific reports2026
Toward trustworthy chatbots: a protocol for red teaming for health related conversations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health-related chatbots require safety assurance beyond factual correctness. We propose a red-teaming protocol for patient-facing AI structured around three pillars: error stratification, dual-pronged testing, and vulnerability-informed mitigation. We distinguish Document Adherence (DA) from Instruction Adherence (IA), deploying adversarial “attacks” across both single-turn and multi-turn exchanges to provoke system failures. We then applied layered mitigations informed by the vulnerabilities revealed by these attacks. We evaluate this framework on a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) based chatbot designed to assist with health-related social needs (HRSN).The protocol identified behavioral noncompliance as the dominant risk. While robust in DA (0/60 errors), the system struggled with IA (15% error rate). Crucially, multi-turn stress tests revealed vulnerabilities hidden in single-turn checks: error rates spiked to 50% for advice queries and 40% for user distress. All high-severity failures occurred during these sustained interactions. Of our mitigations, prompt augmentation reduced total errors by 60%, while document augmentation mitigated single-turn distress errors. Combined, they eliminated high-severity errors entirely by forcing “safe failure” loops. We suggest this cycle of stratified analysis, depth-based testing, and targeted mitigation can be a guiding framework for securing clinical conversational agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.