Development of Application-Specific Large Language Models to Facilitate Research Ethics Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10741v2
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:48:25 GMT
• Title: Development of Application-Specific Large Language Models to Facilitate Research Ethics Review
• Authors: Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Joel Seah Jiehao, Stephen R. Latham, Julian Savulescu, Mateo Aboy, Brian D. Earp,
• Abstract summary: We propose application-specific large language models (LLMs) to facilitate IRB review processes.<n>These IRB-specific LLMs would be fine-tuned on IRB-specific literature and institutional datasets.<n>We outline potential applications, including pre-review screening, preliminary analysis, consistency checking, and decision support.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Institutional review boards (IRBs) play a crucial role in ensuring the ethical conduct of human subjects research, but face challenges including inconsistency, delays, and inefficiencies. We propose the development and implementation of application-specific large language models (LLMs) to facilitate IRB review processes. These IRB-specific LLMs would be fine-tuned on IRB-specific literature and institutional datasets, and equipped with retrieval capabilities to access up-to-date, context-relevant information. We outline potential applications, including pre-review screening, preliminary analysis, consistency checking, and decision support. While addressing concerns about accuracy, context sensitivity, and human oversight, we acknowledge remaining challenges such as over-reliance on AI and the need for transparency. By enhancing the efficiency and quality of ethical review while maintaining human judgment in critical decisions, IRB-specific LLMs offer a promising tool to improve research oversight. We call for pilot studies to evaluate the feasibility and impact of this approach.

Related papers

• Dancing with Critiques: Enhancing LLM Reasoning with Stepwise Natural Language Self-Critique [66.94905631175209]
  We propose a novel inference-time scaling approach -- stepwise natural language self-critique (PANEL) It employs self-generated natural language critiques as feedback to guide the step-level search process. This approach bypasses the need for task-specific verifiers and the associated training overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T17:59:55Z)
• Fine-Grained Bias Detection in LLM: Enhancing detection mechanisms for nuanced biases [0.0]
  This study presents a detection framework to identify nuanced biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) The approach integrates contextual analysis, interpretability via attention mechanisms, and counterfactual data augmentation to capture hidden biases. Results show improvements in detecting subtle biases compared to conventional methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-08T04:43:01Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise. We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  This research introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews. It measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights. Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• Human services organizations and the responsible integration of AI: Considering ethics and contextualizing risk(s) [0.0]
  Authors argue that ethical concerns about AI deployment vary significantly based on implementation context and specific use cases.<n>They propose a dimensional risk assessment approach that considers factors like data sensitivity, professional oversight requirements, and potential impact on client wellbeing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T19:38:21Z)
• Enabling Scalable Oversight via Self-Evolving Critic [59.861013614500024]
  SCRIT (Self-evolving CRITic) is a framework that enables genuine self-evolution of critique abilities.<n>It self-improves by training on synthetic data, generated by a contrastive-based self-critic.<n>It achieves up to a 10.3% improvement on critique-correction and error identification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey of Direct Preference Optimization: Datasets, Theories, Variants, and Applications [52.42860559005861]
  Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has emerged as a promising approach for alignment. Despite DPO's various advancements and inherent limitations, an in-depth review of these aspects is currently lacking in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T02:27:24Z)
• An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems [49.1574468325115]
  We show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. This work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T16:27:52Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents [74.16170899755281]
  We introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents.<n>AgentBoard offers a fine-grained progress rate metric that captures incremental advancements as well as a comprehensive evaluation toolkit.<n>This not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also propels the interpretability of their performance to the forefront.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T01:51:00Z)
• Word-Level ASR Quality Estimation for Efficient Corpus Sampling and Post-Editing through Analyzing Attentions of a Reference-Free Metric [5.592917884093537]
  The potential of quality estimation (QE) metrics is introduced and evaluated as a novel tool to enhance explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in ASR systems. The capabilities of the NoRefER metric are explored in identifying word-level errors to aid post-editors in refining ASR hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T16:48:55Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)

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.