Bias patterns in the application of LLMs for clinical decision support: A comprehensive study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15149v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:52:52 GMT
• Title: Bias patterns in the application of LLMs for clinical decision support: A comprehensive study
• Authors: Raphael Poulain, Hamed Fayyaz, Rahmatollah Beheshti,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful candidates to inform clinical decision-making processes. These models play an increasingly prominent role in shaping the digital landscape. Two growing concerns emerge in healthcare applications: 1) to what extent do LLMs exhibit social bias based on patients' protected attributes (like race), and 2) how do design choices (like architecture design and prompting strategies) influence the observed biases?
• Score: 2.089191490381739
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful candidates to inform clinical decision-making processes. While these models play an increasingly prominent role in shaping the digital landscape, two growing concerns emerge in healthcare applications: 1) to what extent do LLMs exhibit social bias based on patients' protected attributes (like race), and 2) how do design choices (like architecture design and prompting strategies) influence the observed biases? To answer these questions rigorously, we evaluated eight popular LLMs across three question-answering (QA) datasets using clinical vignettes (patient descriptions) standardized for bias evaluations. We employ red-teaming strategies to analyze how demographics affect LLM outputs, comparing both general-purpose and clinically-trained models. Our extensive experiments reveal various disparities (some significant) across protected groups. We also observe several counter-intuitive patterns such as larger models not being necessarily less biased and fined-tuned models on medical data not being necessarily better than the general-purpose models. Furthermore, our study demonstrates the impact of prompt design on bias patterns and shows that specific phrasing can influence bias patterns and reflection-type approaches (like Chain of Thought) can reduce biased outcomes effectively. Consistent with prior studies, we call on additional evaluations, scrutiny, and enhancement of LLMs used in clinical decision support applications.

Related papers

• How Can We Diagnose and Treat Bias in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision-Making? [2.7476176772825904]
  This research investigates the evaluation and mitigation of bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) We introduce a novel Counterfactual Patient Variations (CPV) dataset derived from the JAMA Clinical Challenge. Using this dataset, we built a framework for bias evaluation, employing both Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) and corresponding explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T23:14:10Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Aligning (Medical) LLMs for (Counterfactual) Fairness [2.089191490381739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising solutions for medical and clinical decision support applications. LLMs are subject to different types of biases, which can lead to unfair treatment of individuals, worsening health disparities, and reducing trust in AI-augmented medical tools. We present a new model alignment approach for aligning LLMs using a preference optimization method within a knowledge distillation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T01:11:27Z)
• CLIMB: A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models [39.82307008221118]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. Their potential to exhibit bias poses significant risks to clinical equity. Currently, there is a lack of benchmarks that systematically evaluate such clinical bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T03:41:51Z)
• Debiasing Multimodal Large Language Models [61.6896704217147]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have become indispensable tools in computer vision and natural language processing. Our investigation reveals a noteworthy bias in the generated content, where the output is primarily influenced by the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) prior to the input image. To rectify these biases and redirect the model's focus toward vision information, we introduce two simple, training-free strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T12:35:07Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Delving into Identify-Emphasize Paradigm for Combating Unknown Bias [52.76758938921129]
  We propose an effective bias-conflicting scoring method (ECS) to boost the identification accuracy. We also propose gradient alignment (GA) to balance the contributions of the mined bias-aligned and bias-conflicting samples. Experiments are conducted on multiple datasets in various settings, demonstrating that the proposed solution can mitigate the impact of unknown biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T14:50:24Z)
• What Do You See in this Patient? Behavioral Testing of Clinical NLP Models [69.09570726777817]
  We introduce an extendable testing framework that evaluates the behavior of clinical outcome models regarding changes of the input. We show that model behavior varies drastically even when fine-tuned on the same data and that allegedly best-performing models have not always learned the most medically plausible patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-30T15:52:04Z)
• Model Selection's Disparate Impact in Real-World Deep Learning Applications [3.924854655504237]
  Algorithmic fairness has emphasized the role of biased data in automated decision outcomes. We contend that one source of such bias, human preferences in model selection, remains under-explored in terms of its role in disparate impact across demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T16:37:01Z)
• Adversarial Sample Enhanced Domain Adaptation: A Case Study on Predictive Modeling with Electronic Health Records [57.75125067744978]
  We propose a data augmentation method to facilitate domain adaptation. adversarially generated samples are used during domain adaptation. Results confirm the effectiveness of our method and the generality on different tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-13T03:20:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.