The Alignment Paradox of Medical Large Language Models in Infertility Care: Decoupling Algorithmic Improvement from Clinical Decision-making Quality
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866917098734747648 |
|---|---|
| author | Liu, Dou Long, Ying Zuoqiu, Sophia Xie, Kaipeng Yang, Runze Liu, Di Li, Kang Lin, Yiting Liu, Hanyi Yin, Rong Tang, Tian |
| author_facet | Liu, Dou Long, Ying Zuoqiu, Sophia Xie, Kaipeng Yang, Runze Liu, Di Li, Kang Lin, Yiting Liu, Hanyi Yin, Rong Tang, Tian |
| contents | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in clinical decision support, yet aligning them with the multifaceted reasoning pathways of real-world medicine remains a major challenge. Using more than 8,000 infertility treatment records, we systematically evaluate four alignment strategies: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and In-Context Learning (ICL) through a dual-layer framework combining automatic benchmarks with blinded doctor-in-the-loop assessments. GRPO achieves the highest algorithmic accuracy across multiple decision layers, confirming the value of reinforcement-based optimization for structured prediction tasks. However, clinicians consistently prefer the SFT model, citing clearer reasoning processes (p = 0.035) and higher therapeutic feasibility (p = 0.019). In blinded pairwise comparisons, SFT attains the highest winning rate (51.2%), outperforming both GRPO (26.2%) and even physicians' original decisions (22.7%). These results reveal an alignment paradox: algorithmic improvements do not necessarily translate into higher clinical trust, and may diverge from human-centered preferences. Our findings highlight the need for alignment strategies that prioritize clinically interpretable and practically feasible reasoning, rather than solely optimizing decision-level accuracy. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2511_18084 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | The Alignment Paradox of Medical Large Language Models in Infertility Care: Decoupling Algorithmic Improvement from Clinical Decision-making Quality Liu, Dou Long, Ying Zuoqiu, Sophia Xie, Kaipeng Yang, Runze Liu, Di Li, Kang Lin, Yiting Liu, Hanyi Yin, Rong Tang, Tian Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in clinical decision support, yet aligning them with the multifaceted reasoning pathways of real-world medicine remains a major challenge. Using more than 8,000 infertility treatment records, we systematically evaluate four alignment strategies: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and In-Context Learning (ICL) through a dual-layer framework combining automatic benchmarks with blinded doctor-in-the-loop assessments. GRPO achieves the highest algorithmic accuracy across multiple decision layers, confirming the value of reinforcement-based optimization for structured prediction tasks. However, clinicians consistently prefer the SFT model, citing clearer reasoning processes (p = 0.035) and higher therapeutic feasibility (p = 0.019). In blinded pairwise comparisons, SFT attains the highest winning rate (51.2%), outperforming both GRPO (26.2%) and even physicians' original decisions (22.7%). These results reveal an alignment paradox: algorithmic improvements do not necessarily translate into higher clinical trust, and may diverge from human-centered preferences. Our findings highlight the need for alignment strategies that prioritize clinically interpretable and practically feasible reasoning, rather than solely optimizing decision-level accuracy. |
| title | The Alignment Paradox of Medical Large Language Models in Infertility Care: Decoupling Algorithmic Improvement from Clinical Decision-making Quality |
| topic | Machine Learning Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18084 |