提出临床大模型偏见诊断框架,揭示性别与种族偏见的复杂性。
How Can We Diagnose and Treat Bias in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision-Making?
- 构建反事实患者数据集,通过多选题与解释双路径评估偏见
- 发现消除性别偏见可能引入种族偏见,且偏见随专科变化显著
- 强调需同时审查答案与推理过程,避免表面正确实则偏见
大语言模型在临床决策中应用迅速扩展,但性别与种族偏见问题仍构成重大挑战。本研究基于JAMA临床挑战数据构建了反事实患者变异(CPV)数据集,提出一种多维度偏见评估框架,结合多项选择题(MCQ)与解释分析。实验涵盖八种大模型的提示工程与微调策略。结果表明:消除性别偏见可能引发种族偏见;模型嵌入中的性别偏见在不同医学专科间差异显著。研究证实,仅评估答案正确性不足,错误推理可能导致表面正确的偏见决策。该工作提供真实临床场景下偏见评估与缓解的系统方案,揭示了大模型偏见的复杂本质。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。