pith. sign in

arxiv: 2402.08113 · v3 · pith:GGFPFMTPnew · submitted 2024-02-12 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.HC

Addressing cognitive bias in medical language models

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.HC
keywords cognitivellmsmedicalbiasbiasesquestionsllamaexam
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

There is increasing interest in the application large language models (LLMs) to the medical field, in part because of their impressive performance on medical exam questions. While promising, exam questions do not reflect the complexity of real patient-doctor interactions. In reality, physicians' decisions are shaped by many complex factors, such as patient compliance, personal experience, ethical beliefs, and cognitive bias. Taking a step toward understanding this, our hypothesis posits that when LLMs are confronted with clinical questions containing cognitive biases, they will yield significantly less accurate responses compared to the same questions presented without such biases. In this study, we developed BiasMedQA, a benchmark for evaluating cognitive biases in LLMs applied to medical tasks. Using BiasMedQA we evaluated six LLMs, namely GPT-4, Mixtral-8x70B, GPT-3.5, PaLM-2, Llama 2 70B-chat, and the medically specialized PMC Llama 13B. We tested these models on 1,273 questions from the US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1, 2, and 3, modified to replicate common clinically-relevant cognitive biases. Our analysis revealed varying effects for biases on these LLMs, with GPT-4 standing out for its resilience to bias, in contrast to Llama 2 70B-chat and PMC Llama 13B, which were disproportionately affected by cognitive bias. Our findings highlight the critical need for bias mitigation in the development of medical LLMs, pointing towards safer and more reliable applications in healthcare.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AgentClinic: a multimodal agent benchmark to evaluate AI in simulated clinical environments

    cs.HC 2024-05 conditional novelty 8.0

    AgentClinic is a multimodal agent benchmark demonstrating that LLM diagnostic accuracy on MedQA drops to below one-tenth in sequential clinical simulations, with Claude-3.5 leading and large tool-use differences acros...

  2. Words Speak Louder Than Code: Investigating Cognitive Heuristics in LLM-Based Code Vulnerability Detection

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLMs for code vulnerability detection show average susceptibility of 33.2% to framing, 23.5% to anchoring, and 18.4% to halo effects, with a black-box attack suppressing up to 97% of detections.

  3. Do No Harm? Hallucination and Actor-Level Abuse in Web-Deployed Medical Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Evaluation of 6233 MedGPTs finds 25-30% with low factual accuracy, 33.6-54.3% violating operational thresholds, and 57% of action-enabled models lacking privacy disclosures.

  4. CURE-Med: Curriculum-Informed Reinforcement Learning for Multilingual Medical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CURE-MED pairs a new 13-language medical reasoning benchmark with curriculum RL to raise logical correctness to 70% and language consistency to 95% at 32B scale while outperforming baselines.