Evaluation and mitigation of cognitive biases in medical language models

IF 12.4 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES NPJ Digital Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1038/s41746-024-01283-6
Samuel Schmidgall, Carl Harris, Ime Essien, Daniel Olshvang, Tawsifur Rahman, Ji Woong Kim, Rojin Ziaei, Jason Eshraghian, Peter Abadir, Rama Chellappa
{"title":"Evaluation and mitigation of cognitive biases in medical language models","authors":"Samuel Schmidgall, Carl Harris, Ime Essien, Daniel Olshvang, Tawsifur Rahman, Ji Woong Kim, Rojin Ziaei, Jason Eshraghian, Peter Abadir, Rama Chellappa","doi":"10.1038/s41746-024-01283-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasing interest in applying large language models (LLMs) to medicine is due in part to their impressive performance on medical exam questions. However, these exams do not capture the complexity of real patient–doctor interactions because of factors like patient compliance, experience, and cognitive bias. We hypothesized that LLMs would produce less accurate responses when faced with clinically biased questions as compared to unbiased ones. To test this, we developed the BiasMedQA dataset, which consists of 1273 USMLE questions modified to replicate common clinically relevant cognitive biases. We assessed six LLMs on BiasMedQA and found that GPT-4 stood out for its resilience to bias, in contrast to Llama 2 70B-chat and PMC Llama 13B, which showed large drops in performance. Additionally, we introduced three bias mitigation strategies, which improved but did not fully restore accuracy. Our findings highlight the need to improve LLMs’ robustness to cognitive biases, in order to achieve more reliable applications of LLMs in healthcare.","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11494053/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01283-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Increasing interest in applying large language models (LLMs) to medicine is due in part to their impressive performance on medical exam questions. However, these exams do not capture the complexity of real patient–doctor interactions because of factors like patient compliance, experience, and cognitive bias. We hypothesized that LLMs would produce less accurate responses when faced with clinically biased questions as compared to unbiased ones. To test this, we developed the BiasMedQA dataset, which consists of 1273 USMLE questions modified to replicate common clinically relevant cognitive biases. We assessed six LLMs on BiasMedQA and found that GPT-4 stood out for its resilience to bias, in contrast to Llama 2 70B-chat and PMC Llama 13B, which showed large drops in performance. Additionally, we introduced three bias mitigation strategies, which improved but did not fully restore accuracy. Our findings highlight the need to improve LLMs’ robustness to cognitive biases, in order to achieve more reliable applications of LLMs in healthcare.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估和减轻医学语言模型中的认知偏差。
将大型语言模型(LLMs)应用于医学领域的兴趣与日俱增,部分原因是这些模型在医学考试问题上的表现令人印象深刻。然而,由于患者的依从性、经验和认知偏差等因素,这些考试并不能反映真实的医患互动的复杂性。我们假设,与无偏见的问题相比,法律硕士在面对有临床偏见的问题时做出的回答准确性会更低。为了验证这一假设,我们开发了 BiasMedQA 数据集,该数据集由 1273 个 USMLE 问题组成,这些问题经过修改,复制了常见的临床相关认知偏差。我们在 BiasMedQA 上评估了六种 LLM,发现 GPT-4 对偏差的适应能力很强,而 Llama 2 70B-chat 和 PMC Llama 13B 的性能则大幅下降。此外,我们还引入了三种偏差缓解策略,它们提高了准确性,但并没有完全恢复准确性。我们的研究结果突出表明,有必要提高 LLM 对认知偏差的稳健性,以便在医疗保健领域实现更可靠的 LLM 应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
期刊最新文献
A Novel method for quantifying fluctuations in wearable derived daily cardiovascular parameters across the menstrual cycle An umbrella review on how digital health intervention co-design is conducted and described Adaptive spatiotemporal encoding network for cognitive assessment using resting state EEG Human AI collaboration for unsupervised categorization of live surgical feedback Probabilistic medical predictions of large language models
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1