From Promising Capabilities to Pervasive Bias: Assessing Large Language Models for Emergency Department Triage.

IF 4.6 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Joseph Lee, Tianqi Shang, Jae Young Baik, Duy Duong-Tran, Shu Yang, Lingyao Li, Li Shen
{"title":"From Promising Capabilities to Pervasive Bias: Assessing Large Language Models for Emergency Department Triage.","authors":"Joseph Lee, Tianqi Shang, Jae Young Baik, Duy Duong-Tran, Shu Yang, Lingyao Li, Li Shen","doi":"10.1007/s41666-026-00241-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant promise for clinical applications, yet their application to triage remains underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate the capabilities of LLMs in emergency department triage through two key dimensions: (1) robustness to distribution shifts and missing data, and (2) intersectional biases across sex and race. We assess multiple LLM-based approaches, ranging from continued pre-training to in-context learning, as well as conventional machine learning (ML) approaches. First, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit superior robustness compared to traditional ML, which is promising due to their ability to provide explanatory rationales. Second, we show that the most effective LLM-based methods are those that select similar examples from prior patient cases, whereas reasoning capabilities in LLMs offer little benefit for triage. Lastly, we identify critical gaps in LLM preferences that emerge at the intersections of sex and race. LLMs exhibit sex-based differences, and they are more pronounced in certain racial groups, suggesting that LLMs encode preferences that emerge in specific clinical contexts and combinations of characteristics. We perform this audit through counterfactual analysis, providing a systematic way to identify such biases before real-world integration.</p>","PeriodicalId":101413,"journal":{"name":"Journal of healthcare informatics research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13459022/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of healthcare informatics research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41666-026-00241-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant promise for clinical applications, yet their application to triage remains underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate the capabilities of LLMs in emergency department triage through two key dimensions: (1) robustness to distribution shifts and missing data, and (2) intersectional biases across sex and race. We assess multiple LLM-based approaches, ranging from continued pre-training to in-context learning, as well as conventional machine learning (ML) approaches. First, we demonstrate that LLMs exhibit superior robustness compared to traditional ML, which is promising due to their ability to provide explanatory rationales. Second, we show that the most effective LLM-based methods are those that select similar examples from prior patient cases, whereas reasoning capabilities in LLMs offer little benefit for triage. Lastly, we identify critical gaps in LLM preferences that emerge at the intersections of sex and race. LLMs exhibit sex-based differences, and they are more pronounced in certain racial groups, suggesting that LLMs encode preferences that emerge in specific clinical contexts and combinations of characteristics. We perform this audit through counterfactual analysis, providing a systematic way to identify such biases before real-world integration.

从有希望的能力到普遍的偏见:评估急诊科分类的大型语言模型。
大型语言模型(llm)在临床应用中显示出了巨大的前景,但它们在分诊中的应用仍未得到充分的探索。在本研究中,我们通过两个关键维度系统地调查了法学硕士在急诊科分诊中的能力:(1)对分布变化和缺失数据的稳健性,以及(2)跨性别和种族的交叉偏差。我们评估了多种基于llm的方法,从持续预训练到上下文学习,以及传统的机器学习(ML)方法。首先,我们证明llm与传统ML相比表现出优越的鲁棒性,这是有希望的,因为它们能够提供解释的基本原理。其次,我们表明,最有效的基于法学硕士的方法是从先前的患者病例中选择相似的例子,而法学硕士的推理能力对分诊几乎没有好处。最后,我们确定了在性别和种族交叉点出现的法学硕士偏好的关键差距。法学硕士表现出基于性别的差异,在某些种族群体中更为明显,这表明法学硕士编码了在特定临床环境和特征组合中出现的偏好。我们通过反事实分析进行审计,提供了一种在现实世界整合之前识别此类偏见的系统方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书