Cited by 47Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationDiversity and Career in Medicine

Inherent bias in large language models: a random sampling analysis.

Open access
Ayoub, Noel F., Balakrishnan, Karthik, Ayoub, Marc S., Barrett, Thomas F., David, Abel P., Gray, Stacey T.·2024·Mayo Clinic Proceedings Digital Health

Abstract

There are mounting concerns regarding inherent bias, safety, and tendency toward misinformation of large language models (LLMs), which could have significant implications in health care. This study sought to determine whether generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based simulations of physicians making life-and-death decisions in a resource-scarce environment would demonstrate bias. Thirteen questions were developed that simulated physicians treating patients in resource-limited environments. Through a random sampling of simulated physicians using OpenAI's generative pretrained transformer (GPT-4), physicians were tasked with choosing only 1 patient to save owing to limited resources. This simulation was repeated 1000 times per question, representing 1000 unique physicians and patients each. Patients and physicians spanned a variety of demographic characteristics. All patients had similar a priori likelihood of surviving the acute illness. Overall, simulated physicians consistently demonstrated racial, gender, age, political affiliation, and sexual orientation bias in clinical decision-making. Across all demographic characteristics, physicians most frequently favored patients with similar demographic characteristics as themselves, with most pairwise comparisons showing statistical significance ( P <.05). Nondescript physicians favored White, male, and young demographic characteristics. The male doctor gravitated toward the male, White, and young, whereas the female doctor typically preferred female, young, and White patients. In addition to saving patients with their own political affiliation, Democratic physicians favored Black and female patients, whereas Republicans preferred White and male demographic characteristics. Heterosexual and gay/lesbian physicians frequently saved patients of similar sexual orientation. Overall, publicly available chatbot LLMs demonstrate significant biases, which may negatively impact patient outcomes if used to support clinical care decisions without appropriate precautions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.03.003

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reported biases among LLMs have included propagation of biases based on race and ethnicity, gender, educational level, social class, sexuality, and age.

    “These have included the propagation of biases based on race and ethnicity, gender, educational level, social class, sexuality, and age.184,185,186”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ayoub, N. F., Balakrishnan, K., Ayoub, M. S., Barrett, T. F., David, A. P., & Gray, S. T.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Northwell Health (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Ayoub, Noel F.
Venue
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
186-191
ISSN
2949-7612 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394723029
Cited by
47
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 4
FWCI
19.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mayo Clinic Proceedings Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
Keywords
large language models, algorithmic bias, GPT-4, resource allocation decisions, triage, demographic bias, racial bias, gender bias, political affiliation, sexual orientation, clinical decision support, healthcare resource shortages

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review