TSR Desk · science · 1 November 2026, 01:00 UTC
Can I Take Another Dose? DoseBench: Evaluating LLM Decision-Making in OTC Dosing QA
- What
- Can I Take Another Dose? DoseBench: Evaluating LLM Decision-Making in OTC Dosing QA
- Who
- arxiv.org
- When
- 31 October 2026, 04:00 UTC
- Category
- Science
- Primary source
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04262
- What is not known
- This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.
Asking models to check dose, timing, and missing information makes them more cautious, while providing drug facts improves accuracy but can make them overlook missing information. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 31 October 2026. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer everyday health questions online, including whether someone can take another dose of an over-the-counter (OTC) medication. Yet this common safety-relevant setting remains underexplored in medical QA. Answering these questions requires checking previous doses, timing, and product-specific dosing limits, while recognizing when important information is missing. We introduce DoseBench, a focused benchmark of 230 consumer-style acetaminophen and ibuprofen dosing questions with human-annotated YES, NO, and AMBIGUOUS labels, and evaluate eight LLMs with five responses per question. Overall accuracy ranges from 44.8% to 62.2%, while models incorrectly approve 14.0% to 60.5% of prohibited doses. Models with similar accuracy can therefore make very different dosing decisions. Additional analyses show that these failures are not easily fixed by giving models more guidance. These findings highlight a broader challenge in health QA: applying rules correctly and recognizing when information is missing.
Why it counts
Asking models to check dose, timing, and missing information makes them more cautious, while providing drug facts improves accuracy but can make them overlook missing information.
Sources
Primary source: primary source
What is not known
This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.
No clip. The article still stands.