Intelligence

ai

Whose doctor does the AI recommend? An algorithm audit of reputation and demographic signals in large language model-assisted physician choice

Source
arXiv — Computers and Society
Published
Last verified
17 Aug 2026
Confidence
High
Evidence
Original document retained
Reading time
1 min
Country
International
Relevant to
Research & Evidence, Risk & Compliance, Technology & Data

Executive summary

What happened, and why should leadership care?

A recent research study highlights that Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as 'AI infomediaries' in patient physician selection. These systems silently and at scale influence which healthcare providers become visible and are recommended. The study conducted an algorithm audit to identify how demographic and reputational signals causally affect LLM-assisted physician recommendations.

Why this matters

Why is this strategically important?

The increasing reliance on AI for critical decisions, such as healthcare provider selection, poses significant implications for transparency, fairness, and access. Understanding how these AI systems make recommendations is crucial for ensuring equitable outcomes and maintaining public trust in AI-driven services across various sectors.

Key insights

What should be noted from the evidence?

  • LLMs function as 'AI infomediaries' by influencing patient choices among healthcare providers, thereby determining physician visibility.
  • The research employed a prespecified randomized algorithm audit using seven different LLMs (six open-weight, one proprietary) to evaluate recommendation causality.
  • The audit involved 3,024 unique choice sets with synthetic family-medicine physician cards where attributes were independently randomized.
  • Patient personas, prompt paraphrases, and experimental arms were varied to produce 40,068 scored responses from the LLMs.
  • Physician gender and ethnicity were signaled through names, adhering to correspondence-audit methodology, to assess their impact on recommendations.

Evidence and confidence

How far can this assessment be trusted?

High confidence. Named institution, original document retained and analysis corroborated.

Analysis is prepared editorially by Aziz Shuaib Ausi. The original publication remains the authoritative record, and executive judgement remains entirely human.

Source

Where does this originate?

Reported by arXiv — Computers and Society · International. This briefing summarises the publication for executive use; the document itself is not reproduced here.

Read the original publication