Seeds of Stereotypes: A Large-Scale Textual Analysis of Race and Gender Associations with Diseases in Online Sources

Background Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) hold transformative potential in healthcare, however, recent work has raised concern about the tendency of these models to produce outputs that display racial or gender biases. Although training data is a likely source of such biases, exploration of disease and demographic associations in text data at scale has been limited. Methods We conducted a large-scale textual analysis using a dataset comprising diverse web sources, including Arxiv, Wikipedia, and Common Crawl. The study analyzed the context in which various diseases are discussed alongside markers of race and gender. Given that LLMs are pre-trained on similar datasets, this approach allowed us to examine the potential biases that LLMs may learn and internalize. We compared these findings with actual demographic disease prevalence as well as GPT-4 outputs in order to evaluate the extent of bias representation. Results Our findings indicate that demographic terms are disproportionately associated with specific disease concepts in online texts. gender terms are prominently associated with disease concepts, while racial terms are much less frequently associated. We find widespread disparities in the associations of specific racial and gender terms with the 18 diseases analyzed. Most prominently, we see an overall significant overrepresentation of Black race mentions in comparison to population proportions. Conclusions Our results highlight the need for critical examination and transparent reporting of biases in LLM pretraining datasets. Our study suggests the need to develop mitigation strategies to counteract the influence of biased training data in LLMs, particularly in sensitive domains such as healthcare.

A Toolbox for Surfacing Health Equity Harms and Biases in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) hold immense 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. In this work, 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 then conduct an empirical case study with Med-PaLM 2, resulting in the largest human evaluation study in this area to date. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven newly-released datasets comprising both manually-curated and LLM-generated questions enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of possible biases in Med-PaLM 2 answers to adversarial queries. Through our empirical study, we find that the use of a collection of datasets curated through a variety of methodologies, coupled with a thorough evaluation protocol that leverages multiple assessment rubric designs and diverse rater groups, 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. We emphasize that while our framework can identify specific forms of bias, it is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes. We hope the broader community leverages and builds on these tools and methods towards realizing a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare for all.