REVIEW 3 cited by
DiversityMedQA: Assessing Demographic Biases in Medical Diagnosis using 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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
As large language models (LLMs) gain traction in healthcare, concerns about their susceptibility to demographic biases are growing. We introduce {DiversityMedQA}, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLM responses to medical queries across diverse patient demographics, such as gender and ethnicity. By perturbing questions from the MedQA dataset, which comprises medical board exam questions, we created a benchmark that captures the nuanced differences in medical diagnosis across varying patient profiles. Our findings reveal notable discrepancies in model performance when tested against these demographic variations. Furthermore, to ensure the perturbations were accurate, we also propose a filtering strategy that validates each perturbation. By releasing DiversityMedQA, we provide a resource for evaluating and mitigating demographic bias in LLM medical diagnoses.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
CXXCrafter: An LLM-Based Agent for Automated C/C++ Open Source Software Building
An LLM-driven agent, CXXCrafter, automatically builds 587 of 752 C/C++ open-source projects (78%), beating default build commands (39%) and bare LLMs (32 to 38%).
-
Ensuring Safety and Trust: Analyzing the Risks of Large Language Models in Medicine
MedGuard, a 1,000-question expert-verified benchmark, shows current medical LLMs lag human physicians on safety across fairness, privacy, robustness, resilience, and truthfulness.
-
One Size Fits None: Rethinking Fairness in Medical AI
Across mortality, graft failure, and triage prediction, subgroup analysis shows that aggregate accuracy hides clinically relevant disparities, including lower PRC for Black and female patients.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.