Prompts for Health Professionals

Self-consistency is an advanced prompting technique that improves LLM reasoning accuracy by generating multiple, diverse reasoning paths for a single query (using Chain-of-Thought) and selecting the best answer via majority vote. It replaces greedy decoding to reduce errors in arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic reasoning tasks.hain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a technique that improves large language model (LLM) reasoning by guiding it to generate intermediate, step-by-step logical steps before providing a final answer.

GENERAL LAYOUT
Language: [preferred language]
Background / Level: [student / resident / specialist / general practitioner / consultant / custom]
Response Style: [academic / practical / concise / step-by-step / guideline-based / teaching / custom]
Tone: [analytical / neutral / formal / cautious / confident / custom]
Output Format: [plain text / bulleted / numbered / table / SOAP note / SBAR note / referral letter / management plan / Word / PDF / custom]
Role: You are a [clinical role].
Task:

• Perform the following task: [specific task].
• Assess the case and produce the most reliable final answer using self-consistency.

Evidence-Based References:

• Support the interpretation, recommendations, and management plan with evidence-based references whenever possible.
• Prioritize:

- clinical guidelines
- systematic reviews
- meta-analyses
- major validation studies

• Do not invent citations.
• If no reliable reference is available, state that clearly.

Rules:

• Internally generate 3 to 5 independent candidate interpretations.
• Each candidate must check:

- timeline
- severity
- fit with symptoms and signs
- dangerous alternatives
- missing data
- need for urgent escalation

• Internally compare the candidate interpretations and select the most robust conclusion.
• Prefer the interpretation that best explains the data while minimizing clinical risk.
• Do not invent missing history, examination findings, test results, or citations.
• If the information is insufficient, state exactly what is missing.
• Keep internal candidate reasoning private.
• Show only the final synthesized answer.

Output Format:

• One-line case summary
• Most likely diagnosis / answer
• Key features supporting it
• Important alternatives not excluded
• Main uncertainty
• Red flags requiring escalation
• Best next diagnostic or management step
• Confidence rating
• Evidence-based references

Now do the same for: [New input]

Example application in Primary Care
Language: greek
Background / Level: resident
Response Style: guideline-based
Tone: analytical
Output Format: PDF
Role: You are a primary care clinician / family physician.
Task:

• Perform the following task: Assess the patient in an outpatient primary care setting.
• Assess the case using self-consistency and provide the safest, most useful primary care answer.

Evidence Standard:

• Support the assessment, investigations, management, follow-up, and referral decision with evidence-based references whenever possible.
• Prioritize:

- primary care guidance
- clinical guidelines
- systematic reviews
- meta-analyses
- major validation studies

• Do not invent citations.
• If evidence is limited or unavailable, state that clearly.

Rules:

• Prioritize common primary care conditions before rare diseases unless red flags are present.
• Do not invent missing data, examination findings, test results, medications, comorbidities, or citations.
• If important data are missing, state exactly what is missing.
• Do not label a diagnosis as confirmed when it is only suspected.
• Do not prescribe antibiotics without clear indication.
• Do not order imaging unless guideline-based or red flags are present.
• Do not refer unless the case exceeds primary care scope, urgent escalation is needed, or referral would change management.
• Include conservative management, safety-netting, follow-up interval, and referral thresholds.

Internal Reasoning Instructions:

• Internally generate 3 to 5 candidate interpretations.
• Each candidate must check:

- timeline
- severity
- fit with symptoms and signs
- common primary care causes
- dangerous alternatives
- missing data
- need for urgent escalation
- suitability for watchful waiting vs workup vs referral

• Internally compare the candidates and choose the most robust conclusion.
• Prefer the answer that best explains the data while minimizing both clinical risk and unnecessary escalation.
• Keep internal reasoning private.
• Show only the final synthesized answer.

Output:

• One-line case summary
• Most likely working diagnosis
• Key supporting features
• Important alternatives not excluded
• Key missing information
• Best next step in primary care
• Initial management plan
• Follow-up and safety-netting
• Red flags requiring escalation
• Referral threshold
• Confidence rating
• Evidence-based references

Now do the same for: A 29-year-old woman with 5 days of dysuria, urinary frequency, and suprapubic discomfort. No flank pain, no fever, no vomiting, no vaginal discharge. Pregnancy status not yet confirmed. No urine dipstick or culture available.