How Can We Diagnose and Treat Bias in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision-Making?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16574v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:14:10 GMT
• Title: How Can We Diagnose and Treat Bias in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision-Making?
• Authors: Kenza Benkirane, Jackie Kay, Maria Perez-Ortiz,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 2.7476176772825904
• License:
• Abstract: Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have positioned them as powerful tools for clinical decision-making, with rapidly expanding applications in healthcare. However, concerns about bias remain a significant challenge in the clinical implementation of LLMs, particularly regarding gender and ethnicity. This research investigates the evaluation and mitigation of bias in LLMs applied to complex clinical cases, focusing on gender and ethnicity biases. 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. We explore prompting with eight LLMs and fine-tuning as debiasing methods. Our findings reveal that addressing social biases in LLMs requires a multidimensional approach as mitigating gender bias can occur while introducing ethnicity biases, and that gender bias in LLM embeddings varies significantly across medical specialities. We demonstrate that evaluating both MCQ response and explanation processes is crucial, as correct responses can be based on biased \textit{reasoning}. We provide a framework for evaluating LLM bias in real-world clinical cases, offer insights into the complex nature of bias in these models, and present strategies for bias mitigation.

Related papers

• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Enabling Scalable Evaluation of Bias Patterns in Medical LLMs [2.089191490381739]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive potential in helping with numerous medical challenges. One major area of concern relates to biased behaviors of LLMs in medical applications, leading to unfair treatment of individuals. We present a new method to scale up such bias evaluations by automatically generating test cases based on rigorous medical evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T14:17:03Z)
• GenderCARE: A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in Large Language Models [73.23743278545321]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in natural language generation, but have also been observed to magnify societal biases. GenderCARE is a comprehensive framework that encompasses innovative Criteria, bias Assessment, Reduction techniques, and Evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T15:35:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark [63.21278434331952]
  We build a benchmark ClinicBench to better understand large language models (LLMs) in the clinic. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. We then construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T15:51:06Z)
• Bias patterns in the application of LLMs for clinical decision support: A comprehensive study [2.089191490381739]
  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?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T15:52:52Z)
• Addressing cognitive bias in medical language models [25.58126133789956]
  BiasMedQA is a benchmark for evaluating cognitive biases in large language models (LLMs) applied to medical tasks. We tested six models on 1,273 questions from the US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1, 2, and 3. GPT-4 stood out for its resilience to bias, in contrast to Llama 2 70B-chat and PMC Llama 13B, which were disproportionately affected by cognitive bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T23:08:37Z)
• 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)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

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.