Healthcare AI Safety Gap · Don't break patients
    Peer-reviewed / official20 Oct 2026·US

    Stigmatising details in the chart led AI triage to push sicker patients down the queue

    npj Digital Medicine: when notes mentioned frequent emergency department visits or a history of psychiatric emergencies, three open-source language models became less likely to prioritise the patient who later deteriorated, wrongly downgrading nearly 10% of patients in some scenarios.

    nearly 10%
    of patients wrongly downgraded by AI triage in some scenarios once stigmatising details were added

    What the research found

    UT Southwestern researchers paired emergency department patients from Stanford Medicine and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who looked similarly ill on arrival, where one later deteriorated and one did not, and asked three open-source language models which to prioritise. The models picked the higher-risk patient well above chance, but adding details unrelated to the immediate complaint, such as frequent emergency visits or a history of psychiatric emergencies, lowered the priority of patients who went on to deteriorate, with nearly 10% wrongly downgraded in some scenarios. The models were tested on past records rather than used in live triage, and the effects varied by model and scenario.

    Why it matters for providers

    Triage tools learn from charts that already carry clinicians' biases, so providers should test any AI triage aid on the patients most often labelled frequent attenders before trusting it at the front door.

    Original source
    npj Digital Medicine (UT Southwestern, with Stanford Medicine and Beth Israel Deaconess records)
    Read the full report ↗
    Peer-reviewed or official source — the most reliable tier.