Cross-Care: Assessing the Healthcare Implications of Pre-training Data on Language Model Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05506v2
• Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:17:52 GMT
• Title: Cross-Care: Assessing the Healthcare Implications of Pre-training Data on Language Model Bias
• Authors: Shan Chen, Jack Gallifant, Mingye Gao, Pedro Moreira, Nikolaj Munch, Ajay Muthukkumar, Arvind Rajan, Jaya Kolluri, Amelia Fiske, Janna Hastings, Hugo Aerts, Brian Anthony, Leo Anthony Celi, William G. La Cava, Danielle S. Bitterman,
• Abstract summary: We introduce Cross-Care, the first benchmark framework dedicated to assessing biases and real world knowledge in large language models (LLMs) We evaluate how demographic biases embedded in pre-training corpora like $ThePile$ influence the outputs of LLMs. Our results highlight substantial misalignment between LLM representation of disease prevalence and real disease prevalence rates across demographic subgroups.
• Score: 3.455189439319919
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly essential in processing natural languages, yet their application is frequently compromised by biases and inaccuracies originating in their training data. In this study, we introduce Cross-Care, the first benchmark framework dedicated to assessing biases and real world knowledge in LLMs, specifically focusing on the representation of disease prevalence across diverse demographic groups. We systematically evaluate how demographic biases embedded in pre-training corpora like $ThePile$ influence the outputs of LLMs. We expose and quantify discrepancies by juxtaposing these biases against actual disease prevalences in various U.S. demographic groups. Our results highlight substantial misalignment between LLM representation of disease prevalence and real disease prevalence rates across demographic subgroups, indicating a pronounced risk of bias propagation and a lack of real-world grounding for medical applications of LLMs. Furthermore, we observe that various alignment methods minimally resolve inconsistencies in the models' representation of disease prevalence across different languages. For further exploration and analysis, we make all data and a data visualization tool available at: www.crosscare.net.

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)
• DiversityMedQA: Assessing Demographic Biases in Medical Diagnosis using Large Language Models [2.750784330885499]
  We introduce DiversityMedQA, a novel benchmark designed to assess large language models (LLMs) responses to medical queries across diverse patient demographics. Our findings reveal notable discrepancies in model performance when tested against these demographic variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-02T23:37:20Z)
• Assessing and Enhancing Large Language Models in Rare Disease Question-answering [64.32570472692187]
  We introduce a rare disease question-answering (ReDis-QA) dataset to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in diagnosing rare diseases. We collected 1360 high-quality question-answer pairs within the ReDis-QA dataset, covering 205 rare diseases. We then benchmarked several open-source LLMs, revealing that diagnosing rare diseases remains a significant challenge for these models. Experiment results demonstrate that ReCOP can effectively improve the accuracy of LLMs on the ReDis-QA dataset by an average of 8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T21:09:09Z)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• Seeds of Stereotypes: A Large-Scale Textual Analysis of Race and Gender Associations with Diseases in Online Sources [1.8259644946867188]
  The study analyzed the context in which various diseases are discussed alongside markers of race and gender. We found that demographic terms are disproportionately associated with specific disease concepts in online texts. We find widespread disparities in the associations of specific racial and gender terms with the 18 diseases analyzed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T13:38:56Z)
• Dive into the Chasm: Probing the Gap between In- and Cross-Topic Generalization [66.4659448305396]
  This study analyzes various LMs with three probing-based experiments to shed light on the reasons behind the In- vs. Cross-Topic generalization gap. We demonstrate, for the first time, that generalization gaps and the robustness of the embedding space vary significantly across LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T12:59:27Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Connecting Fairness in Machine Learning with Public Health Equity [0.0]
  biases in data and model design can result in disparities for certain protected groups and amplify existing inequalities in healthcare. This study summarizes seminal literature on ML fairness and presents a framework for identifying and mitigating biases in the data and model. Case studies suggest how the framework can be used to prevent these biases and highlight the need for fair and equitable ML models in public health.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-08T10:21:49Z)
• Auditing Algorithmic Fairness in Machine Learning for Health with Severity-Based LOGAN [70.76142503046782]
  We propose supplementing machine learning-based (ML) healthcare tools for bias with SLOGAN, an automatic tool for capturing local biases in a clinical prediction task. LOGAN adapts an existing tool, LOcal Group biAs detectioN, by contextualizing group bias detection in patient illness severity and past medical history. On average, SLOGAN identifies larger fairness disparities in over 75% of patient groups than LOGAN while maintaining clustering quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T08:04:12Z)
• Risk of Training Diagnostic Algorithms on Data with Demographic Bias [0.5599792629509227]
  We conduct a survey of the MICCAI 2018 proceedings to investigate the common practice in medical image analysis applications. Surprisingly, we found that papers focusing on diagnosis rarely describe the demographics of the datasets used. We show that it is possible to learn unbiased features by explicitly using demographic variables in an adversarial training setup.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T13:51:01Z)
• Predictive Modeling of ICU Healthcare-Associated Infections from Imbalanced Data. Using Ensembles and a Clustering-Based Undersampling Approach [55.41644538483948]
  This work is focused on both the identification of risk factors and the prediction of healthcare-associated infections in intensive-care units. The aim is to support decision making addressed at reducing the incidence rate of infections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-07T16:13:12Z)

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.