Mayli Mertens

Mingxuan Liu, Yilin Ning, Salinelat Teixayavong et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated the ability to extract insights from data, but the issue of fairness remains a concern in high-stakes fields such as healthcare. Despite extensive discussion and efforts in algorithm development, AI fairness and clinical concerns have not been adequately addressed. In this paper, we discuss the misalignment between technical and clinical perspectives of AI fairness, highlight the barriers to AI fairness' translation to healthcare, advocate multidisciplinary collaboration to bridge the knowledge gap, and provide possible solutions to address the clinical concerns pertaining to AI fairness.

Yilin Ning, Salinelat Teixayavong, Yuqing Shang et al.

The widespread use of ChatGPT and other emerging technology powered by generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has drawn much attention to potential ethical issues, especially in high-stakes applications such as healthcare, but ethical discussions are yet to translate into operationalisable solutions. Furthermore, ongoing ethical discussions often neglect other types of GenAI that have been used to synthesise data (e.g., images) for research and practical purposes, which resolved some ethical issues and exposed others. We conduct a scoping review of ethical discussions on GenAI in healthcare to comprehensively analyse gaps in the current research, and further propose to reduce the gaps by developing a checklist for comprehensive assessment and transparent documentation of ethical discussions in GenAI research. The checklist can be readily integrated into the current peer review and publication system to enhance GenAI research, and may be used for ethics-related disclosures for GenAI-powered products, healthcare applications of such products and beyond.

Mingxuan Liu, Yuhe Ke, Wentao Zhu et al.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into healthcare holds promise to enhance clinical decision-making, yet their susceptibility to biases remains a critical concern. Gender has long influenced physician behaviors and patient outcomes, raising concerns that LLMs assuming human-like roles, such as clinicians or medical educators, may replicate or amplify gender-related biases. Using case studies from the New England Journal of Medicine Challenge (NEJM), we assigned genders (female, male, or unspecified) to multiple open-source and proprietary LLMs. We evaluated their response consistency across LLM-gender assignments regarding both LLM-based diagnosis and models' judgments on the clinical relevance or necessity of patient gender. In our findings, diagnoses were relatively consistent across LLM genders for most models. However, for patient gender's relevance and necessity in LLM-based diagnosis, all models demonstrated substantial inconsistency across LLM genders, particularly for relevance judgements. Some models even displayed a systematic female-male disparity in their interpretation of patient gender. These findings present an underexplored bias that could undermine the reliability of LLMs in clinical practice, underscoring the need for routine checks of identity-assignment consistency when interacting with LLMs to ensure reliable and equitable AI-supported clinical care.