First, Do No Harm (With LLMs): Mitigating Racial Bias via Agentic Workflows

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18038v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 10:02:38 GMT
• Title: First, Do No Harm (With LLMs): Mitigating Racial Bias via Agentic Workflows
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, raising concerns about racial bias in generated medical text and clinical reasoning.<n>This study uses the EU AI Act as a governance lens to evaluate five widely used LLMs across two tasks.<n>All models deviated from observed racial distributions in the synthetic case generation task, with GPT-4.1 showing the smallest overall deviation.<n>When embedded in an agentic workflow, DeepSeek V3 showed an improvement of 0.0348 in mean p-value, 0.1166 in median p-value, and 0.0949 in mean difference relative to the standalone model.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, raising concerns about racial bias in both generated medical text and clinical reasoning. Existing studies have identified bias in medical LLMs, but many focus on single models and give less attention to mitigation. This study uses the EU AI Act as a governance lens to evaluate five widely used LLMs across two tasks, namely synthetic patient-case generation and differential diagnosis ranking. Using race-stratified epidemiological distributions in the United States and expert differential diagnosis lists as benchmarks, we apply structured prompt templates and a two-part evaluation design to examine implicit and explicit racial bias. All models deviated from observed racial distributions in the synthetic case generation task, with GPT-4.1 showing the smallest overall deviation. In the differential diagnosis task, DeepSeek V3 produced the strongest overall results across the reported metrics. When embedded in an agentic workflow, DeepSeek V3 showed an improvement of 0.0348 in mean p-value, 0.1166 in median p-value, and 0.0949 in mean difference relative to the standalone model, although improvement was not uniform across every metric. These findings support multi-metric bias evaluation for AI systems used in medical settings and suggest that retrieval-based agentic workflows may reduce some forms of explicit bias in benchmarked diagnostic tasks. Detailed prompt templates, experimental datasets, and code pipelines are available on our GitHub.

Related papers

• Toward Better Assessment of LLMs' Performance in Clinical Error Detection [13.451007655769827]
  We evaluate 15 large language models (LLMs) for automated detection of errors in clinical documentation.<n>We find that 13 of 15 models fall below the level of random pairwise discrimination, even while achieving F1 scores that standard practice would read as moderate.<n>We show that F1 and pairwise accuracy are driven in opposite directions by the same underlying bias, so that ranking models by F1 may systematically promote the weakest discriminators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T14:41:53Z)
• Beyond Scalar Scores: Exploring LLM-based Metrics for Clinical Significance Evaluation in Radiology Reports [49.5225801722164]
  Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar.<n>We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T08:10:30Z)
• Synergizing Discriminative Exemplars and Self-Refined Experience for MLLM-based In-Context Learning in Medical Diagnosis [4.619078510367921]
  Clinician Mimetic is a novel In-Context Learning (ICL) framework designed to synergize Discriminative Exemplar Coreset Selection (DECS) and Self-Refined Experience Summarization (SRES)<n> DECS simulates a clinician's ability to reference "anchor cases" by selecting discriminative visual coresets from noisy data at the computational level.<n>SRES mimics the cognition and reflection in clinical diagnosis by distilling diverse rollouts into a dynamic textual Experience Bank.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-29T15:29:59Z)
• When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation [18.338933046286257]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to address diverse problems, including medical queries.<n>LLMs often perform poorly in medical contexts, potentially leading to harmful misguidance for users.<n>This paper focuses on fine-tuning the Llama 2 7B, a transformer-based, decoder-only model, using transcripts from real patient-doctor interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T21:09:43Z)
• Interpreting Biomedical VLMs on High-Imbalance Out-of-Distributions: An Insight into BiomedCLIP on Radiology [0.0]
  We analyse the limitations of BiomedCLIP when applied to a highly imbalanced, out-of-distribution medical dataset.<n>We show that the model under zero-shot settings over-predicts all labels, leading to poor precision and inter-class separability.<n>We highlight the need for careful adaptations of the models to foster reliability and applicability in a real-world setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T02:59:42Z)
• Prismatic Synthesis: Gradient-based Data Diversification Boosts Generalization in LLM Reasoning [77.120955854093]
  We show that data diversity can be a strong predictor of generalization in language models.<n>We introduce G-Vendi, a metric that quantifies diversity via the entropy of model-induced gradients.<n>We present Prismatic Synthesis, a framework for generating diverse synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T16:05:10Z)
• AI Alignment in Medical Imaging: Unveiling Hidden Biases Through Counterfactual Analysis [16.21270312974956]
  We introduce a novel statistical framework to evaluate the dependency of medical imaging ML models on sensitive attributes, such as demographics.<n>We present a practical algorithm that combines conditional latent diffusion models with statistical hypothesis testing to identify and quantify such biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-28T09:28:25Z)
• Perplexity Trap: PLM-Based Retrievers Overrate Low Perplexity Documents [64.43980129731587]
  We propose a causal-inspired inference-time debiasing method called Causal Diagnosis and Correction (CDC)<n>CDC first diagnoses the bias effect of the perplexity and then separates the bias effect from the overall relevance score.<n> Experimental results across three domains demonstrate the superior debiasing effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:59:00Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• AutoElicit: Using Large Language Models for Expert Prior Elicitation in Predictive Modelling [53.54623137152208]
  We introduce AutoElicit to extract knowledge from large language models and construct priors for predictive models.<n>We show these priors are informative and can be refined using natural language.<n>We find that AutoElicit yields priors that can substantially reduce error over uninformative priors, using fewer labels, and consistently outperform in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T10:13:39Z)
• Towards Fairer Health Recommendations: finding informative unbiased samples via Word Sense Disambiguation [3.328297368052458]
  We tackle bias detection in medical curricula using NLP models, including LLMs. We evaluate them on a gold standard dataset containing 4,105 excerpts annotated by medical experts for bias from a large corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:10:20Z)
• Automated Medical Coding on MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV: A Critical Review and Replicability Study [60.56194508762205]
  We reproduce, compare, and analyze state-of-the-art automated medical coding machine learning models. We show that several models underperform due to weak configurations, poorly sampled train-test splits, and insufficient evaluation. We present the first comprehensive results on the newly released MIMIC-IV dataset using the reproduced models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T11:54:44Z)
• A comprehensive comparative evaluation and analysis of Distributional Semantic Models [61.41800660636555]
  We perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. The results show that the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous. We borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T15:18:06Z)

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.