CLIMB: A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces CLIMB, a benchmark for evaluating the clinical bias in large language models (LLMs).
- CLIMB consists of several datasets and tasks designed to assess an LLM's ability to provide accurate, unbiased, and ethically-aligned information in a clinical context.
- The paper also presents the results of evaluating several popular LLMs on the CLIMB benchmark, highlighting areas where these models exhibit concerning biases.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers have created a new tool called CLIMB to test how well large language models (LLMs) - powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text - perform when dealing with medical and clinical information. LLMs are increasingly being used in healthcare, but there are concerns that they might exhibit biases or make mistakes that could negatively impact patient care.
CLIMB includes a variety of datasets and tasks that assess different aspects of an LLM's clinical knowledge and decision-making abilities. For example, it tests whether an LLM can accurately diagnose medical conditions, provide unbiased treatment recommendations, and communicate empathetically with patients. The researchers then used CLIMB to evaluate several popular LLMs, and found that these models often struggled with certain clinical tasks and exhibited biases, such as making different treatment recommendations based on a patient's race or gender.
The goal of this work is to help developers and users of LLMs understand the limitations of these systems when it comes to sensitive healthcare applications, and to spur the creation of more reliable and equitable AI tools for the medical field.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces the CLIMB (Clinical Language Models Benchmark) framework, which is designed to evaluate the clinical bias and performance of large language models (LLMs). CLIMB consists of several datasets and tasks that cover different aspects of clinical decision-making and communication, including medical diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and patient-provider interactions.
The researchers used CLIMB to evaluate the performance of several popular LLMs, including GPT-3, Megatron-Turing NLG, and PaLM. Their results showed that these models often exhibited concerning biases, such as making different treatment recommendations based on a patient's race or gender, and struggled with tasks that require nuanced clinical reasoning and empathetic communication.
The paper also introduces several new datasets and tasks as part of the CLIMB benchmark, including CLAMBER, which focuses on identifying and clarifying ambiguous clinical information needs. The authors argue that these new resources can help drive the development of more reliable and equitable LLMs for healthcare applications.
Critical Analysis
The CLIMB benchmark represents a significant step forward in evaluating the clinical capabilities and biases of large language models. By focusing on a range of clinically-relevant tasks and datasets, the researchers have created a comprehensive tool for assessing the suitability of these models for healthcare applications.
However, the paper does acknowledge several limitations of CLIMB and the broader challenge of ensuring the clinical reliability and fairness of LLMs. For example, the datasets used in CLIMB may not capture the full diversity of clinical scenarios and patient populations, and the benchmark may not be able to detect more subtle or context-dependent biases.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential causes of the biases observed in the evaluated LLMs, such as the composition of the training data or the model architectures. Further research is needed to understand the sources of these biases and develop more effective debiasing techniques.
Overall, the CLIMB benchmark represents an important contribution to the field of clinical AI, but there is still much work to be done to ensure that large language models can be safely and ethically deployed in healthcare settings.
Conclusion
The CLIMB benchmark provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the clinical capabilities and biases of large language models (LLMs). By testing these models on a range of clinically-relevant tasks, the researchers have uncovered concerning biases and limitations that could impact patient care if these models are used in healthcare applications.
The results of the CLIMB evaluations highlight the need for continued research and development to create more reliable and equitable AI tools for the medical field. As LLMs become increasingly prevalent in healthcare, it is crucial that their performance and ethical alignment are rigorously assessed and improved upon. The CLIMB benchmark represents an important step in this direction, and its continued use and refinement can help drive the development of more trustworthy and beneficial clinical AI systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
CLIMB: A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models
Yubo Zhang, Shudi Hou, Mingyu Derek Ma, Wei Wang, Muhao Chen, Jieyu Zhao
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. However, 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. While in downstream tasks, some biases of LLMs can be avoided such as by instructing the model to answer I'm not sure..., the internal bias hidden within the model still lacks deep studies. We introduce CLIMB (shorthand for A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models), a pioneering comprehensive benchmark to evaluate both intrinsic (within LLMs) and extrinsic (on downstream tasks) bias in LLMs for clinical decision tasks. Notably, for intrinsic bias, we introduce a novel metric, AssocMAD, to assess the disparities of LLMs across multiple demographic groups. Additionally, we leverage counterfactual intervention to evaluate extrinsic bias in a task of clinical diagnosis prediction. Our experiments across popular and medically adapted LLMs, particularly from the Mistral and LLaMA families, unveil prevalent behaviors with both intrinsic and extrinsic bias. This work underscores the critical need to mitigate clinical bias and sets a new standard for future evaluations of LLMs' clinical bias.
Read more7/9/2024
0
CliBench: Multifaceted Evaluation of Large Language Models in Clinical Decisions on Diagnoses, Procedures, Lab Tests Orders and Prescriptions
Mingyu Derek Ma, Chenchen Ye, Yu Yan, Xiaoxuan Wang, Peipei Ping, Timothy S Chang, Wei Wang
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Large Language Models (LLMs), into the clinical diagnosis process offers significant potential to improve the efficiency and accessibility of medical care. While LLMs have shown some promise in the medical domain, their application in clinical diagnosis remains underexplored, especially in real-world clinical practice, where highly sophisticated, patient-specific decisions need to be made. Current evaluations of LLMs in this field are often narrow in scope, focusing on specific diseases or specialties and employing simplified diagnostic tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce CliBench, a novel benchmark developed from the MIMIC IV dataset, offering a comprehensive and realistic assessment of LLMs' capabilities in clinical diagnosis. This benchmark not only covers diagnoses from a diverse range of medical cases across various specialties but also incorporates tasks of clinical significance: treatment procedure identification, lab test ordering and medication prescriptions. Supported by structured output ontologies, CliBench enables a precise and multi-granular evaluation, offering an in-depth understanding of LLM's capability on diverse clinical tasks of desired granularity. We conduct a zero-shot evaluation of leading LLMs to assess their proficiency in clinical decision-making. Our preliminary results shed light on the potential and limitations of current LLMs in clinical settings, providing valuable insights for future advancements in LLM-powered healthcare.
Read more6/17/2024
🌀
0
Bias patterns in the application of LLMs for clinical decision support: A comprehensive study
Raphael Poulain, Hamed Fayyaz, Rahmatollah Beheshti
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful candidates to inform clinical decision-making processes. While 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? To answer these questions rigorously, we evaluated eight popular LLMs across three question-answering (QA) datasets using clinical vignettes (patient descriptions) standardized for bias evaluations. We employ red-teaming strategies to analyze how demographics affect LLM outputs, comparing both general-purpose and clinically-trained models. Our extensive experiments reveal various disparities (some significant) across protected groups. We also observe several counter-intuitive patterns such as larger models not being necessarily less biased and fined-tuned models on medical data not being necessarily better than the general-purpose models. Furthermore, our study demonstrates the impact of prompt design on bias patterns and shows that specific phrasing can influence bias patterns and reflection-type approaches (like Chain of Thought) can reduce biased outcomes effectively. Consistent with prior studies, we call on additional evaluations, scrutiny, and enhancement of LLMs used in clinical decision support applications.
Read more4/24/2024
0
CLUE: A Clinical Language Understanding Evaluation for LLMs
Amin Dada, Marie Bauer, Amanda Butler Contreras, Osman Alperen Korac{s}, Constantin Marc Seibold, Kaleb E Smith, Jens Kleesiek
Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to significantly contribute to patient care, diagnostics, and administrative processes. Emerging biomedical LLMs aim to address healthcare-specific challenges, including privacy demands and computational constraints. Assessing the models' suitability for this sensitive application area is of the utmost importance. However, biomedical training has not been systematically evaluated on medical tasks. This study investigates the effect of biomedical training in the context of six practical medical tasks evaluating $25$ models. In contrast to previous evaluations, our results reveal a performance decline in nine out of twelve biomedical models after fine-tuning, particularly on tasks involving hallucinations, ICD10 coding, and instruction adherence. General-domain models like Meta-Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct outperformed their biomedical counterparts, indicating a trade-off between domain-specific fine-tuning and general medical task performance. We open-source all evaluation scripts and datasets at https://github.com/TIO-IKIM/CLUE to support further research in this critical area.
Read more9/18/2024