Abstract
From drafting responses to patient messages to clinical decision support to patient-facing educational chatbots, Large Language Models (LLMs) present many opportunities for use in clinical situations. In these applications, we must consider potential harms to minoritized groups through the propagation of medical misinformation or previously-held misconceptions. In this work, we evaluate the potential of LLMs to propagate anti-LGBTQIA+ medical bias and misinformation. We prompted 4 LLMs (Gemini 1.5 Flash, Claude 3 Haiku, GPT-4o, Stanford Medicine Secure GPT (GPT-4.0)) with a set of 38 prompts consisting of explicit questions and synthetic clinical notes created by medically trained reviewers and LGBTQIA+ health experts. The prompts explored clinical situations across two axes: (i) situations where historical bias has been observed vs. not observed, and (ii) situations where LGBTQIA+ identity is relevant to clinical care vs. not relevant. Medically trained reviewers evaluated LLM responses for appropriateness (safety, privacy, hallucination/accuracy, and bias) and clinical utility. We find that all 4 LLMs evaluated generated inappropriate responses to our prompt set. LLM performance is strongly hampered by learned anti-LGBTQIA+ bias and over-reliance on the mentioned conditions in prompts. Given these results, future work should focus on tailoring output formats according to stated use cases, decreasing sycophancy and reliance on extraneous information in the prompt, and improving accuracy and decreasing bias for LGBTQIA+ patients and care providers.
Competing Interest Statement
MRL has received consulting fees from Hims Inc, Folx Inc, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization, Inc., and the American DentalAssociation. RD has served as an advisor to MDAlgorithms and Revea and received consulting fees from Pfizer, L'Oreal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA, and research funding from UCB. SK is a co-founder of Virtue AI and recently consulted with Google Deepmind.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. The annotated prompts and responses dataset is available within the Supplementary Materials and accessible on our website at https://daneshjoulab.github.io/anti_lgbtqia_medical_bias_in_llms/.
