Evaluation of Gender Bias in the Evaluation of Synthetic Cardiovascular Disease Cases with Open Source LLMs
Robinson, R.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate gender bias in open-source large language models (LLMs) for cardiovascular diagnostic decision-making using controlled synthetic case vignettes. MethodsWe generated 500 synthetic cardiovascular cases with randomly assigned gender (male/female, equal distribution) and age (45-80 years), keeping all other clinical variables identical. Two structured prompts simulated sequential cardiovascular evaluation stages: initial chest discomfort presentation and post-stress-test evaluation. Three open-source LLMs were evaluated via local Ollama API: Gemma-2b, Phi, and TinyLLaMA. Primary outcomes included coronary artery disease (CAD) likelihood ratings (low/intermediate/high), diagnostic certainty (low/intermediate/high), and test usefulness scores (1-10 scale). Statistical analysis included chi-square tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and logistic/linear regression with multiple comparison adjustments. Power analysis determined minimum detectable effects of 12.5% for individual models and 7.2% for pooled data. ResultsEvaluation of 1,500 model responses (500 cases x 3 models) revealed minimal gender-related differences. Only one statistically significant finding emerged: Gemma-2b assigned higher diagnostic certainty to female patients in initial presentations (58% vs. 48%, p=0.031, adjusted p=0.092). No other gender-based differences reached significance after multiple-comparison adjustment. Effect sizes were consistently small across all comparisons (Cohens h: 0.01-0.18; Cliffs delta: -0.11 to 0.12). Substantial inter-model variability was observed, with Gemma-2b and Phi demonstrating assertive diagnostic patterns while TinyLLaMA showed conservative tendencies. Parsing quality exceeded 95% for all models. ConclusionsOpen-source LLMs demonstrated largely gender-neutral outputs in controlled cardiovascular scenarios, contrasting with documented biases in human clinicians and commercial LLMs. The isolated gender effect in Gemma-2b was modest and clinically insignificant. More concerning was substantial inter-model variability in diagnostic confidence and test recommendations, highlighting the critical importance of rigorous model benchmarking before clinical deployment. These preliminary findings suggest that open-source LLMs may offer advantages for equitable healthcare applications, but broader validation across diverse clinical contexts and real-world constraints remains essential.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Cardiology Knowledge Assessment of Retrieval-Augmented Open versus Proprietary Large Language Models 95%
- Designing a computer-assisted diagnosis system for cardiomegaly detection and radiology report generation 94%
- Raising awareness of potential biases in medical machine learning: Experience from a Datathon 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating algorithmic fairness in the presence of clinical guidelines: the case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimation 93%
- GenECG: A synthetic image-based ECG dataset to augment artificial intelligence-enhanced algorithm development 93%
- User Testing of a Diagnostic Decision Support System with Machine-assisted Chart Review to Facilitate Clinical Genomic Diagnosis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.