REVIEW 2 cited by
A Toolbox for Surfacing Health Equity Harms and Biases in Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) hold promise to serve complex health information needs but also have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities. Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity. We present resources and methodologies for surfacing biases with potential to precipitate equity-related harms in long-form, LLM-generated answers to medical questions and conduct a large-scale empirical case study with the Med-PaLM 2 LLM. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven datasets enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of Med-PaLM 2 answers. Through our empirical study, we find that our approach surfaces biases that may be missed via narrower evaluation approaches. Our experience underscores the importance of using diverse assessment methodologies and involving raters of varying backgrounds and expertise. While our approach is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes, we hope that it can be leveraged and built upon towards a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
MamaBench: Benchmarking LLM Robustness in Maternal and Child Health Diagnosis through Counterfactual Clinical Perturbation
A counterfactual benchmark for maternal/pediatric diagnosis shows LLMs' base accuracy overstates robustness by up to 30 percentage points, and evidence-anchored RAG reduces the bias-trap rate to 20.3% on the best model.
-
Not as Sweet by Another Name: An Empirical Study of Format Robustness in LLM Document Workflows
Changing the file format of identical input content changes LLM workflow decisions in 41% of cases on average and can reduce accuracy by up to 56 percentage points, with CSV the most error-prone format.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.