PriMera Scientific Engineering (ISSN: 2834-2550)

Review Article

Volume 9 Issue 5

Simulating Patient Resistance in silico: Evaluating Concepts in Rare Diseases using Patient Agents with Limited Rationality

Robin Vivian*

October 30, 2026

DOI : 10.56831/PSEN-09-302

View PDF

Abstract

The evaluation of new medical concepts and digital health devices for rare diseases is hampered by the scarcity and vulnerability of real-world patient cohorts. Synthetic sampling (Silicon Sampling) using personas driven by large language models (LLMs) offers a promising digital evaluation framework, but one that is biased by ‘algorithmic perfection’: over-rational decision-making, omniscience via retrieval-from- sources (RAG) and sycophancy.

This article establishes a methodological framework based on the meta-ergonomics of falsification and the Adversarial Cognitive Twin (ACT) architecture. Rather than increasing the persona’s theoretical intelligence, we propose to falsify the synthetic agent by injecting it with calibrated cognitive impairments, semantic entropy, reduced user knowledge bases and multi-agent contradiction loops. This methodological constraint enables the simulation of mental load, doubts and user resistance - characteristics specific to clinical reality. An experimental benchmarking protocol based on secondary data enables the measurement of error alignment and the rate of compliance inhibition. This work defines a robust and ethical framework for use, compliant with the requirements of the EU AI Act, positioning the constrained persona as a filter for user resistance prior to in vivo clinical research.

Keywords: Synthetic Patients; Meta-ergonomics; Constructive friction; Rare diseases; Adversarial AI

References

  1. Argyle LP., et al. “Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples”. Political Analysis 31.3 (2023): 337-351.
  2. Austin CP., et al. “Future of rare diseases research 2017-2027: An IRDiRC perspective”. Clinical and Translational Science 11.1 (2018): 21-27.
  3. Christiano PF., et al. “Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NIPS 2017) (2017): 4299-4307.
  4. Clot Y. “La fonction psychologique du travail [The psychological function of work]”. University Presses of France, Paris (1999).
  5. Engeström Y. “Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research”. Orienta-Consultit, Helsinki (1987).
  6. Goodfellow IJ, Shlens J and Szegedy C. “Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572 (2014).
  7. Grieves M and Vickers J. “Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behaviour in complex systems”. In: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems: New Findings and Approaches (2017): 85-113.
  8. Horvitz E. “Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces”. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99) (1999): 159-166.
  9. Kahneman D. “Thinking, fast and slow”. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2011).
  10. Leplat J. “Psychological analysis of activity in ergonomics: An overview of its evolution, models, and methods”. Octarès Editions, Toulouse (2000).
  11. Lewis P., et al. “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) (2020): 9459-9474.
  12. Nori H., et al. “Capabilities of GPT-4 on medical challenge problems”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375 (2023).
  13. Nutbeam D. “Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century”. Health Promotion International 15.3 (2000): 259-267.
  14. Paas F., et al. “Techniques for measuring cognitive load”. Educational Psychologist 38.1 (2003): 63-71.
  15. Perez E., et al. “Discovering language model behaviours with model-written evaluations”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09251 (2022).
  16. Popper KR. “The logic of scientific discovery”. Hutchinson & Co., London (1959).
  17. Rath A., et al. “Representation of rare diseases in health information systems: The Orphanet approach to serve a wide range of end users”. Human Mutation 33.5 (2012): 803-808.
  18. Sabaté E. “Adherence to long-term therapies: Evidence for action”. World Health Organization, Geneva (2003).
  19. Simon HA. “A behavioural model of rational choice”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69.1 (1955): 99-118.
  20. Sweller J. “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning”. Cognitive Science 12.2 (1988): 257-285.
  21. Tversky A and Kahneman D. “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”. Science 211.4481 (1981): 453-458.
  22. Vivian R. “The adversarial mirror: Falsifying adaptive AI with generative AI for a meta-ergonomics of liquid interfaces”. Manuscript submitted for publication, Perseus Laboratory, University of Lorraine, Metz, France (2026).
  23. Wei J., et al. “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models”. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022) (2022): 24824-24837.
  24. Wickens CD. “Multiple resources and mental workload”. Human Factors 50.3 (2008): 449-455.