急诊科的大型语言模型:对临床医生的公平性影响。

IF 3.4 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Kasumi Satoh, Manabu Okuyama, Hajime Nakae, Yohei Okada
{"title":"急诊科的大型语言模型:对临床医生的公平性影响。","authors":"Kasumi Satoh, Manabu Okuyama, Hajime Nakae, Yohei Okada","doi":"10.15441/ceem.26.409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Applications of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are rapidly expanding in emergency medicine, but concerns remain regarding their fairness across diverse patient populations. Fairness extends beyond model accuracy and includes equal performance across patient groups, equitable outcomes and allocation of clinical benefits, and procedural fairness throughout the lifecycle of AI implementation. This narrative review aims to provide a practical framework for understanding and evaluating fairness in emergency medicine applications of AI and LLMs. This narrative review organizes fairness risks into three clinically relevant layers. First, datalevel fairness concerns the data used to train, fine-tune, or prompt AI systems. Biased clinical data, including non-random missingness and stigmatizing documentation, can influence model performance. Second, output-level fairness concerns whether the outputs generated by AI systems are equally accurate, safe, and useful across patient groups. In emergency care, subgroup-specific errors in recommendations, predictions, translations, or instructions may arise from aggregation, learning, or evaluation bias, even when overall model performance appears strong. Third, human-interaction fairness concerns whether the benefits of AI are realized equitably in clinical practice and by patients. Even when data and outputs are fair, inequities may arise if clinicians over-rely on or reject useful AI recommendations, or if patients are unable to access, understand, or trust AI-mediated information. Clinicians should consider potential implications for safety, transparency, and fairness alongside overall model accuracy when evaluating AI tools in emergency medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":10325,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Large Language Models in the Emergency Department: Fairness Implications for Clinicians.\",\"authors\":\"Kasumi Satoh, Manabu Okuyama, Hajime Nakae, Yohei Okada\",\"doi\":\"10.15441/ceem.26.409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Applications of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are rapidly expanding in emergency medicine, but concerns remain regarding their fairness across diverse patient populations. Fairness extends beyond model accuracy and includes equal performance across patient groups, equitable outcomes and allocation of clinical benefits, and procedural fairness throughout the lifecycle of AI implementation. This narrative review aims to provide a practical framework for understanding and evaluating fairness in emergency medicine applications of AI and LLMs. This narrative review organizes fairness risks into three clinically relevant layers. First, datalevel fairness concerns the data used to train, fine-tune, or prompt AI systems. Biased clinical data, including non-random missingness and stigmatizing documentation, can influence model performance. Second, output-level fairness concerns whether the outputs generated by AI systems are equally accurate, safe, and useful across patient groups. In emergency care, subgroup-specific errors in recommendations, predictions, translations, or instructions may arise from aggregation, learning, or evaluation bias, even when overall model performance appears strong. Third, human-interaction fairness concerns whether the benefits of AI are realized equitably in clinical practice and by patients. Even when data and outputs are fair, inequities may arise if clinicians over-rely on or reject useful AI recommendations, or if patients are unable to access, understand, or trust AI-mediated information. Clinicians should consider potential implications for safety, transparency, and fairness alongside overall model accuracy when evaluating AI tools in emergency medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.26.409\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.26.409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)的应用,特别是大型语言模型(llm)在急诊医学中的应用正在迅速扩大,但人们仍然担心它们在不同患者群体中的公平性。公平不仅限于模型的准确性,还包括患者群体的平等表现、公平的结果和临床利益分配,以及人工智能实施整个生命周期的程序公平。本文旨在为理解和评估人工智能和法学硕士在急诊医学应用中的公平性提供一个实用框架。这篇叙述性综述将公平性风险分为三个临床相关层面。首先,数据层面的公平性涉及用于训练、微调或提示人工智能系统的数据。有偏见的临床数据,包括非随机缺失和污名化的文档,会影响模型的性能。其次,输出级公平性涉及人工智能系统生成的输出是否在不同患者群体中同样准确、安全和有用。在急诊护理中,即使在整体模型表现良好的情况下,建议、预测、翻译或指令中的亚组特定错误也可能来自聚合、学习或评估偏差。第三,人机交互公平性涉及人工智能的益处在临床实践和患者中是否公平实现。即使数据和产出是公平的,如果临床医生过度依赖或拒绝有用的人工智能建议,或者如果患者无法获取、理解或信任人工智能介导的信息,也可能出现不公平现象。临床医生在评估急诊医学中的人工智能工具时,应考虑对安全性、透明度和公平性的潜在影响,以及整体模型的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Large Language Models in the Emergency Department: Fairness Implications for Clinicians.

Applications of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are rapidly expanding in emergency medicine, but concerns remain regarding their fairness across diverse patient populations. Fairness extends beyond model accuracy and includes equal performance across patient groups, equitable outcomes and allocation of clinical benefits, and procedural fairness throughout the lifecycle of AI implementation. This narrative review aims to provide a practical framework for understanding and evaluating fairness in emergency medicine applications of AI and LLMs. This narrative review organizes fairness risks into three clinically relevant layers. First, datalevel fairness concerns the data used to train, fine-tune, or prompt AI systems. Biased clinical data, including non-random missingness and stigmatizing documentation, can influence model performance. Second, output-level fairness concerns whether the outputs generated by AI systems are equally accurate, safe, and useful across patient groups. In emergency care, subgroup-specific errors in recommendations, predictions, translations, or instructions may arise from aggregation, learning, or evaluation bias, even when overall model performance appears strong. Third, human-interaction fairness concerns whether the benefits of AI are realized equitably in clinical practice and by patients. Even when data and outputs are fair, inequities may arise if clinicians over-rely on or reject useful AI recommendations, or if patients are unable to access, understand, or trust AI-mediated information. Clinicians should consider potential implications for safety, transparency, and fairness alongside overall model accuracy when evaluating AI tools in emergency medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
59
×
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