Large language models exhibit unreliable updating of clinical judgment as patient evidence evolves

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for clinical reasoning, but whether they appropriately revise judgments as patient evidence evolves remains unclear. We evaluated longitudinal belief updating using matched intensive-care trajectories from electronic health records. Across diverse LLMs, conditioning on a preceding judgment more often increased than reduced prediction error when estimates changed, replicated for a second endpoint. Controlled interventions revealed two failure modes. First, with preceding assessment fixed, models responded more strongly to worsening than matched improving respiratory evidence; this asymmetry persisted after headroom normalization at moderate and strong evidence levels. Second, with current evidence fixed, increasing prior risk from 10% to 90% shifted estimates by 26.2 percentage points, demonstrating causal influence of prior model beliefs. Prompting did not restore reliable updating. Evidence-Validated Longitudinal Update (EVLU) identified fewer, more reliable revisions, revealing a reliability-coverage trade-off. These findings establish longitudinal belief updating as a distinct dimension of LLM reliability.