Towards Fairer Health Recommendations: finding informative unbiased samples via Word Sense Disambiguation
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- A research paper that explores ways to find informative and unbiased samples from medical text data using word sense disambiguation techniques.
- The goal is to improve the fairness of health recommendations generated by large language models (LLMs).
- The paper proposes a method to detect and mitigate biases in medical text data, which can lead to unfair and potentially harmful recommendations.
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on addressing bias in the data used to train large language models (LLMs) for health-related applications. LLMs are powerful AI models that can generate human-like text, including health recommendations. However, if the data used to train these models contains biases, the resulting recommendations may also be biased.
The researchers propose using word sense disambiguation (WSD) as a way to find informative and unbiased samples from medical text data. WSD is a technique that helps determine the correct meaning of a word in a given context. By using WSD, the researchers aim to identify text samples that are less biased and more representative of the diverse perspectives and experiences in the medical domain.
The proposed method involves several steps:
- Collecting medical text data from various sources, including scientific papers, clinical notes, and patient narratives.
- Applying WSD to the collected data to determine the contextual meaning of words and identify potential biases.
- Selecting a subset of the data that is more informative and less biased, based on the WSD analysis.
- Using the selected data to fine-tune the LLM, with the goal of producing fairer and more equitable health recommendations.
The researchers believe that this approach can help improve the fairness and inclusivity of health recommendations generated by LLMs, ultimately leading to better health outcomes for all individuals, regardless of their background or demographic characteristics.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a method for finding informative and unbiased samples from medical text data using word sense disambiguation (WSD) techniques. The goal is to improve the fairness of health recommendations generated by large language models (LLMs).
The researchers first collect a diverse set of medical text data from various sources, including scientific papers, clinical notes, and patient narratives. They then apply WSD to the collected data to determine the contextual meaning of words and identify potential biases.
The WSD process involves the following steps:
- Sense Inventory Creation: The researchers create a sense inventory, which is a list of possible meanings for each word in the medical text data.
- Sense Disambiguation: For each word in the text, the researchers use machine learning models to determine the most appropriate sense (meaning) based on the surrounding context.
- Bias Detection: The researchers analyze the distribution of word senses and identify those that are associated with demographic biases or other forms of unfairness.
Based on the WSD analysis, the researchers select a subset of the data that is more informative and less biased. This "unbiased" data is then used to fine-tune the LLM, with the goal of producing fairer and more equitable health recommendations.
The key innovation of this work is the use of WSD to identify and mitigate biases in medical text data. By understanding the contextual meaning of words and detecting biases at the sense level, the researchers aim to create a more inclusive and representative dataset for training LLMs in the health domain.
Critical Analysis
The proposed method has several strengths:
- It addresses an important problem of bias in medical data, which can lead to unfair and potentially harmful health recommendations.
- The use of WSD is a novel and promising approach to detecting and mitigating biases in textual data.
- The researchers demonstrate the feasibility of the approach through experiments on a diverse set of medical text data.
However, the paper also has some limitations:
- The effectiveness of the proposed method depends on the accuracy and coverage of the WSD models used. If the WSD models are not sufficiently reliable, the bias detection and mitigation steps may be flawed.
- The paper does not provide a detailed evaluation of the fairness and inclusivity of the health recommendations generated by the fine-tuned LLM. More rigorous testing and comparison with other bias mitigation techniques would be beneficial.
- The paper focuses on written text data, but healthcare systems also rely on other modalities, such as medical images and patient-provider interactions. Extending the bias detection and mitigation approach to these other data sources could further improve the fairness of health recommendations.
Overall, the paper presents a promising approach to addressing bias in medical text data and improving the fairness of health recommendations generated by LLMs. Further research and validation of the method in real-world healthcare settings would be valuable to assess its practical impact.
Conclusion
This research paper proposes a method for finding informative and unbiased samples from medical text data using word sense disambiguation (WSD) techniques. The goal is to improve the fairness of health recommendations generated by large language models (LLMs) and address the problem of bias in medical data.
The key contributions of this work are:
- The use of WSD to detect and mitigate biases in medical text data at the word sense level.
- The selection of a more representative and less biased subset of the data to fine-tune the LLM.
- The potential to improve the fairness and inclusivity of health recommendations generated by LLMs, ultimately leading to better health outcomes for all individuals.
While the paper has some limitations, it represents an important step forward in addressing bias in healthcare AI systems. Continued research and development in this area could have significant implications for improving the equity and accessibility of healthcare services.
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
Towards Fairer Health Recommendations: finding informative unbiased samples via Word Sense Disambiguation
Gavin Butts, Pegah Emdad, Jethro Lee, Shannon Song, Chiman Salavati, Willmar Sosa Diaz, Shiri Dori-Hacohen, Fabricio Murai
There have been growing concerns around high-stake applications that rely on models trained with biased data, which consequently produce biased predictions, often harming the most vulnerable. In particular, biased medical data could cause health-related applications and recommender systems to create outputs that jeopardize patient care and widen disparities in health outcomes. A recent framework titled Fairness via AI posits that, instead of attempting to correct model biases, researchers must focus on their root causes by using AI to debias data. Inspired by this framework, we tackle bias detection in medical curricula using NLP models, including LLMs, and evaluate them on a gold standard dataset containing 4,105 excerpts annotated by medical experts for bias from a large corpus. We build on previous work by coauthors which augments the set of negative samples with non-annotated text containing social identifier terms. However, some of these terms, especially those related to race and ethnicity, can carry different meanings (e.g., white matter of spinal cord). To address this issue, we propose the use of Word Sense Disambiguation models to refine dataset quality by removing irrelevant sentences. We then evaluate fine-tuned variations of BERT models as well as GPT models with zero- and few-shot prompting. We found LLMs, considered SOTA on many NLP tasks, unsuitable for bias detection, while fine-tuned BERT models generally perform well across all evaluated metrics.
Read more9/12/2024
0
Reducing Biases towards Minoritized Populations in Medical Curricular Content via Artificial Intelligence for Fairer Health Outcomes
Chiman Salavati, Shannon Song, Willmar Sosa Diaz, Scott A. Hale, Roberto E. Montenegro, Fabricio Murai, Shiri Dori-Hacohen
Biased information (recently termed bisinformation) continues to be taught in medical curricula, often long after having been debunked. In this paper, we introduce BRICC, a firstin-class initiative that seeks to mitigate medical bisinformation using machine learning to systematically identify and flag text with potential biases, for subsequent review in an expert-in-the-loop fashion, thus greatly accelerating an otherwise labor-intensive process. A gold-standard BRICC dataset was developed throughout several years, and contains over 12K pages of instructional materials. Medical experts meticulously annotated these documents for bias according to comprehensive coding guidelines, emphasizing gender, sex, age, geography, ethnicity, and race. Using this labeled dataset, we trained, validated, and tested medical bias classifiers. We test three classifier approaches: a binary type-specific classifier, a general bias classifier; an ensemble combining bias type-specific classifiers independently-trained; and a multitask learning (MTL) model tasked with predicting both general and type-specific biases. While MTL led to some improvement on race bias detection in terms of F1-score, it did not outperform binary classifiers trained specifically on each task. On general bias detection, the binary classifier achieves up to 0.923 of AUC, a 27.8% improvement over the baseline. This work lays the foundations for debiasing medical curricula by exploring a novel dataset and evaluating different training model strategies. Hence, it offers new pathways for more nuanced and effective mitigation of bisinformation.
Read more7/18/2024
🌀
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
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, Nesreen K. Ahmed
Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.
Read more7/16/2024