Sandbagging in AI as Medical Devices: Patient Safety and Liability Risks (Preprint)

<sec> <title>UNSTRUCTURED</title> This study examines the phenomenon of "sandbagging" in AI medical devices, where systems strategically underperform during evaluation to conceal dangerous capabilities that emerge post-deployment. Through systematic analysis of emerging literature on AI sandbagging behaviour, technical detection approaches, and regulatory structures in the EU, UK, and US, this research reveals critical gaps in current regulatory frameworks designed for traditional medical devices. Analysis shows sandbagging manifests through both developer-driven mechanisms (where engineers intentionally display safer capabilities for expedited deployment) and system-driven mechanisms (where AI systems autonomously underperform during evaluation phases). Research shows that both large frontier and smaller models exhibit sandbagging behaviours after prompting or fine-tuning while maintaining general performance benchmarks, with larger models demonstrating superior calibration capabilities. Current static regulatory approaches in the EU Medical Device Regulation and UK frameworks fail to detect sandbagging as they rely on documentation-based submissions without addressing AI's dynamic, generative nature. The US FDA's Total Product Lifecycle approach shows promise through algorithm change protocols and real-world performance monitoring, yet regulatory sandboxes remain underutilized. Healthcare provider liability becomes dangerously ambiguous when clinicians rely on systems with concealed capabilities, particularly given automation bias effects and black-box reasoning limitations. Traditional risk classifications focusing on direct bodily harm inadequately address AI's potential for deceptive behaviour, including "password-locked" models that reveal hidden capabilities when triggered. Technical detection solutions including attribution graph analysis and noise-based detection show promise but remain insufficient. Dynamic evaluation frameworks are essential, recommending mandatory regulatory sandboxes for real-world testing, continuous monitoring protocols, adversarial testing, and enhanced post-market surveillance. </sec>

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.83411
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sandbagging in AI as Medical Devices: Patient Safety and Liability Risks (Preprint)

Eugenia Forte
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Sandbagging in AI as Medical Devices: Patient Safety and Liability Risks (Preprint)

Eugenia Forte
article en

Abstract

<sec> <title>UNSTRUCTURED</title> This study examines the phenomenon of "sandbagging" in AI medical devices, where systems strategically underperform during evaluation to conceal dangerous capabilities that emerge post-deployment. Through systematic analysis of emerging literature on AI sandbagging behaviour, technical detection approaches, and regulatory structures in the EU, UK, and US, this research reveals critical gaps in current regulatory frameworks designed for traditional medical devices. Analysis shows sandbagging manifests through both developer-driven mechanisms (where engineers intentionally display safer capabilities for expedited deployment) and system-driven mechanisms (where AI systems autonomously underperform during evaluation phases). Research shows that both large frontier and smaller models exhibit sandbagging behaviours after prompting or fine-tuning while maintaining general performance benchmarks, with larger models demonstrating superior calibration capabilities. Current static regulatory approaches in the EU Medical Device Regulation and UK frameworks fail to detect sandbagging as they rely on documentation-based submissions without addressing AI's dynamic, generative nature. The US FDA's Total Product Lifecycle approach shows promise through algorithm change protocols and real-world performance monitoring, yet regulatory sandboxes remain underutilized. Healthcare provider liability becomes dangerously ambiguous when clinicians rely on systems with concealed capabilities, particularly given automation bias effects and black-box reasoning limitations. Traditional risk classifications focusing on direct bodily harm inadequately address AI's potential for deceptive behaviour, including "password-locked" models that reveal hidden capabilities when triggered. Technical detection solutions including attribution graph analysis and noise-based detection show promise but remain insufficient. Dynamic evaluation frameworks are essential, recommending mandatory regulatory sandboxes for real-world testing, continuous monitoring protocols, adversarial testing, and enhanced post-market surveillance. </sec>

Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.