Bias in Large Language Models Across Clinical Applications: A Systematic Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02917v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 13:32:08 GMT
• Title: Bias in Large Language Models Across Clinical Applications: A Systematic Review
• Authors: Thanathip Suenghataiphorn, Narisara Tribuddharat, Pojsakorn Danpanichkul, Narathorn Kulthamrongsri,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into healthcare, promising to enhance various clinical tasks.<n>This systematic review investigates the prevalence, sources, manifestations, and clinical implications of bias in LLMs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into healthcare, promising to enhance various clinical tasks. However, concerns exist regarding their potential for bias, which could compromise patient care and exacerbate health inequities. This systematic review investigates the prevalence, sources, manifestations, and clinical implications of bias in LLMs. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, OVID, and EMBASE from database inception through 2025, for studies evaluating bias in LLMs applied to clinical tasks. We extracted data on LLM type, bias source, bias manifestation, affected attributes, clinical task, evaluation methods, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified ROBINS-I tool. Results: Thirty-eight studies met inclusion criteria, revealing pervasive bias across various LLMs and clinical applications. Both data-related bias (from biased training data) and model-related bias (from model training) were significant contributors. Biases manifested as: allocative harm (e.g., differential treatment recommendations); representational harm (e.g., stereotypical associations, biased image generation); and performance disparities (e.g., variable output quality). These biases affected multiple attributes, most frequently race/ethnicity and gender, but also age, disability, and language. Conclusions: Bias in clinical LLMs is a pervasive and systemic issue, with a potential to lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment, particularly for marginalized patient populations. Rigorous evaluation of the model is crucial. Furthermore, the development and implementation of effective mitigation strategies, coupled with continuous monitoring in real-world clinical settings, are essential to ensure the safe, equitable, and trustworthy deployment of LLMs in healthcare.

Related papers

• Med-CoDE: Medical Critique based Disagreement Evaluation Framework [72.42301910238861]
  The reliability and accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts remain critical concerns. Current evaluation methods often lack robustness and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of LLM performance. We propose Med-CoDE, a specifically designed evaluation framework for medical LLMs to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:51:11Z)
• Debias-CLR: A Contrastive Learning Based Debiasing Method for Algorithmic Fairness in Healthcare Applications [0.17624347338410748]
  We proposed an implicit in-processing debiasing method to combat disparate treatment. We used clinical notes of heart failure patients and used diagnostic codes, procedure reports and physiological vitals of the patients. We found that Debias-CLR was able to reduce the Single-Category Word Embedding Association Test (SC-WEAT) effect size score when debiasing for gender and ethnicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T19:32:01Z)
• 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)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• 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.<n>To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets.<n>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)
• Cross-Care: Assessing the Healthcare Implications of Pre-training Data on Language Model Bias [3.455189439319919]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T02:33:14Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)

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.