Abstract
Objective Large language models' (LLMs) alignment with ethical standards is unclear. We tested whether LLMs shift medical ethical decisions when given socio-demographic cues. Methods We created 100 clinical scenarios, each posing a yes/no choice between two conflicting ethical principles. Nine LLMs were tested with and without 53 socio-demographic modifiers. Each scenario-modifier combination was repeated 10 times per model (for a total of ~0.5M prompts). We tracked how socio-demographic features modified ethical choices. Results All models altered their responses when introduced with socio-demographic details (p<0.001). Justice and nonmaleficence were prioritized most often (over 30% across all models) and showed the least variability. High-income modifiers increased utilitarian choices while lowering beneficence and nonmaleficence. Marginalized-group modifiers raised autonomy. Some models were more consistent than others. However, none maintained consistency across all scenarios. Conclusions LLMs can be influenced by socio-demographic cues. They do not always maintain stable ethical priorities. The largest shifts are seen in utilitarian choices. These findings raise concerns about algorithmic alignment with accepted values.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part through the computational and data resources and staff expertise provided by Scientific Computing and Data at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) grant UL1TR004419 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Research reported in this publication was also supported by the Office of Research Infrastructure of the National Institutes of Health under award number S10OD026880 and S10OD030463. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos