An Algorithmic Approach for Causal Health Equity: A Look at Race Differentials in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Outcomes

The new era of large-scale data collection and analysis presents an opportunity for diagnosing and understanding the causes of health inequities. In this study, we describe a framework for systematically analyzing health disparities using causal inference. The framework is illustrated by investigating racial and ethnic disparities in intensive care unit (ICU) outcome between majority and minority groups in Australia (Indigenous vs. Non-Indigenous) and the United States (African-American vs. White). We demonstrate that commonly used statistical measures for quantifying inequity are insufficient, and focus on attributing the observed disparity to the causal mechanisms that generate it. We find that minority patients are younger at admission, have worse chronic health, are more likely to be admitted for urgent and non-elective reasons, and have higher illness severity. At the same time, however, we find a protective direct effect of belonging to a minority group, with minority patients showing improved survival compared to their majority counterparts, with all other variables kept equal. We demonstrate that this protective effect is related to the increased probability of being admitted to ICU, with minority patients having an increased risk of ICU admission. We also find that minority patients, while showing improved survival, are more likely to be readmitted to ICU. Thus, due to worse access to primary health care, minority patients are more likely to end up in ICU for preventable conditions, causing a reduction in the mortality rates and creating an effect that appears to be protective. Since the baseline risk of ICU admission may serve as proxy for lack of access to primary care, we developed the Indigenous Intensive Care Equity (IICE) Radar, a monitoring system for tracking the over-utilization of ICU resources by the Indigenous population of Australia across geographical areas.

Multi-OphthaLingua: A Multilingual Benchmark for Assessing and Debiasing LLM Ophthalmological QA in LMICs

Current ophthalmology clinical workflows are plagued by over-referrals, long waits, and complex and heterogeneous medical records. Large language models (LLMs) present a promising solution to automate various procedures such as triaging, preliminary tests like visual acuity assessment, and report summaries. However, LLMs have demonstrated significantly varied performance across different languages in natural language question-answering tasks, potentially exacerbating healthcare disparities in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). This study introduces the first multilingual ophthalmological question-answering benchmark with manually curated questions parallel across languages, allowing for direct cross-lingual comparisons. Our evaluation of 6 popular LLMs across 7 different languages reveals substantial bias across different languages, highlighting risks for clinical deployment of LLMs in LMICs. Existing debiasing methods such as Translation Chain-of-Thought or Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) by themselves fall short of closing this performance gap, often failing to improve performance across all languages and lacking specificity for the medical domain. To address this issue, We propose CLARA (Cross-Lingual Reflective Agentic system), a novel inference time de-biasing method leveraging retrieval augmented generation and self-verification. Our approach not only improves performance across all languages but also significantly reduces the multilingual bias gap, facilitating equitable LLM application across the globe.

MedDec: A Dataset for Extracting Medical Decisions from Discharge Summaries

Medical decisions directly impact individuals' health and well-being. Extracting decision spans from clinical notes plays a crucial role in understanding medical decision-making processes. In this paper, we develop a new dataset called "MedDec", which contains clinical notes of eleven different phenotypes (diseases) annotated by ten types of medical decisions. We introduce the task of medical decision extraction, aiming to jointly extract and classify different types of medical decisions within clinical notes. We provide a comprehensive analysis of the dataset, develop a span detection model as a baseline for this task, evaluate recent span detection approaches, and employ a few metrics to measure the complexity of data samples. Our findings shed light on the complexities inherent in clinical decision extraction and enable future work in this area of research. The dataset and code are available through https://github.com/CLU-UML/MedDec.

Language Models are Surprisingly Fragile to Drug Names in Biomedical Benchmarks

Medical knowledge is context-dependent and requires consistent reasoning across various natural language expressions of semantically equivalent phrases. This is particularly crucial for drug names, where patients often use brand names like Advil or Tylenol instead of their generic equivalents. To study this, we create a new robustness dataset, RABBITS, to evaluate performance differences on medical benchmarks after swapping brand and generic drug names using physician expert annotations. We assess both open-source and API-based LLMs on MedQA and MedMCQA, revealing a consistent performance drop ranging from 1-10\%. Furthermore, we identify a potential source of this fragility as the contamination of test data in widely used pre-training datasets. All code is accessible at https://github.com/BittermanLab/RABBITS, and a HuggingFace leaderboard is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/AIM-Harvard/rabbits-leaderboard.

Multimodal Deep Learning for Low-Resource Settings: A Vector Embedding Alignment Approach for Healthcare Applications

Large-scale multi-modal deep learning models have revolutionized domains such as healthcare, highlighting the importance of computational power. However, in resource-constrained regions like Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), limited access to GPUs and data poses significant challenges, often leaving CPUs as the sole resource. To address this, we advocate for leveraging vector embeddings to enable flexible and efficient computational methodologies, democratizing multimodal deep learning across diverse contexts. Our paper investigates the efficiency and effectiveness of using vector embeddings from single-modal foundation models and multi-modal Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for multimodal deep learning in low-resource environments, particularly in healthcare. Additionally, we propose a simple yet effective inference-time method to enhance performance by aligning image-text embeddings. Comparing these approaches with traditional methods, we assess their impact on computational efficiency and model performance using metrics like accuracy, F1-score, inference time, training time, and memory usage across three medical modalities: BRSET (ophthalmology), HAM10000 (dermatology), and SatelliteBench (public health). Our findings show that embeddings reduce computational demands without compromising model performance. Furthermore, our alignment method improves performance in medical tasks. This research promotes sustainable AI practices by optimizing resources in constrained environments, highlighting the potential of embedding-based approaches for efficient multimodal learning. Vector embeddings democratize multimodal deep learning in LMICs, particularly in healthcare, enhancing AI adaptability in varied use cases.

Towards Clinical AI Fairness: Filling Gaps in the Puzzle

The ethical integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare necessitates addressing fairness-a concept that is highly context-specific across medical fields. Extensive studies have been conducted to expand the technical components of AI fairness, while tremendous calls for AI fairness have been raised from healthcare. Despite this, a significant disconnect persists between technical advancements and their practical clinical applications, resulting in a lack of contextualized discussion of AI fairness in clinical settings. Through a detailed evidence gap analysis, our review systematically pinpoints several deficiencies concerning both healthcare data and the provided AI fairness solutions. We highlight the scarcity of research on AI fairness in many medical domains where AI technology is increasingly utilized. Additionally, our analysis highlights a substantial reliance on group fairness, aiming to ensure equality among demographic groups from a macro healthcare system perspective; in contrast, individual fairness, focusing on equity at a more granular level, is frequently overlooked. To bridge these gaps, our review advances actionable strategies for both the healthcare and AI research communities. Beyond applying existing AI fairness methods in healthcare, we further emphasize the importance of involving healthcare professionals to refine AI fairness concepts and methods to ensure contextually relevant and ethically sound AI applications in healthcare.

Cross-Care: Assessing the Healthcare Implications of Pre-training Data on Language Model Bias

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly essential in processing natural languages, yet their application is frequently compromised by biases and inaccuracies originating in their training data. In this study, we introduce Cross-Care, the first benchmark framework dedicated to assessing biases and real world knowledge in LLMs, specifically focusing on the representation of disease prevalence across diverse demographic groups. We systematically evaluate how demographic biases embedded in pre-training corpora like $ThePile$ influence the outputs of LLMs. We expose and quantify discrepancies by juxtaposing these biases against actual disease prevalences in various U.S. demographic groups. Our results highlight substantial misalignment between LLM representation of disease prevalence and real disease prevalence rates across demographic subgroups, indicating a pronounced risk of bias propagation and a lack of real-world grounding for medical applications of LLMs. Furthermore, we observe that various alignment methods minimally resolve inconsistencies in the models' representation of disease prevalence across different languages. For further exploration and analysis, we make all data and a data visualization tool available at: www.crosscare.net.

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.

DF-DM: A foundational process model for multimodal data fusion in the artificial intelligence era

In the big data era, integrating diverse data modalities poses significant challenges, particularly in complex fields like healthcare. This paper introduces a new process model for multimodal Data Fusion for Data Mining, integrating embeddings and the Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining with the existing Data Fusion Information Group model. Our model aims to decrease computational costs, complexity, and bias while improving efficiency and reliability. We also propose "disentangled dense fusion", a novel embedding fusion method designed to optimize mutual information and facilitate dense inter-modality feature interaction, thereby minimizing redundant information. We demonstrate the model's efficacy through three use cases: predicting diabetic retinopathy using retinal images and patient metadata, domestic violence prediction employing satellite imagery, internet, and census data, and identifying clinical and demographic features from radiography images and clinical notes. The model achieved a Macro F1 score of 0.92 in diabetic retinopathy prediction, an R-squared of 0.854 and sMAPE of 24.868 in domestic violence prediction, and a macro AUC of 0.92 and 0.99 for disease prediction and sex classification, respectively, in radiological analysis. These results underscore the Data Fusion for Data Mining model's potential to significantly impact multimodal data processing, promoting its adoption in diverse, resource-constrained settings.

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.