Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40011901›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal for equity in health2025

Evaluating and addressing demographic disparities in medical large language models: a systematic review.

Mahmud Omar, Vera Sorin, Reem Agbareia, Donald U Apakama, Ali Soroush, Ankit Sakhuja, Robert Freeman, Carol R Horowitz, Lynne D Richardson, Girish N Nadkarni and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Large Language Models and Empathy: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mahmud OmarThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. Mahmudomar70@gmail.com.
Vera SorinDiagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Reem AgbareiaOphthalmology Department, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Donald U ApakamaThe Charles Bronfman Institute of Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Ali SoroushThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Ankit SakhujaThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Robert FreemanThe Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Carol R HorowitzInstitute for Health Equity Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Lynne D RichardsonInstitute for Health Equity Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Girish N Nadkarni *The Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Eyal Klang *The Division of Data-Driven and Digital Medicine (D3M), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models are increasingly evaluated for use in healthcare. However, concerns about their impact on disparities persist. This study reviews current research on demographic biases in large language models to identify prevalent bias types, assess measurement methods, and evaluate mitigation strategies.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching publications from January 2018 to July 2024 across five databases. We included peer-reviewed studies evaluating demographic biases in large language models, focusing on gender, race, ethnicity, age, and other factors. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools.

resultsOur review included 24 studies. Of these, 22 (91.7%) identified biases. Gender bias was the most prevalent, reported in 15 of 16 studies (93.7%). Racial or ethnic biases were observed in 10 of 11 studies (90.9%). Only two studies found minimal or no bias in certain contexts. Mitigation strategies mainly included prompt engineering, with varying effectiveness. However, these findings are tempered by a potential publication bias, as studies with negative results are less frequently published.

conclusionBiases are observed in large language models across various medical domains. While bias detection is improving, effective mitigation strategies are still developing. As LLMs increasingly influence critical decisions, addressing these biases and their resultant disparities is essential for ensuring fair artificial intelligence systems. Future research should focus on a wider range of demographic factors, intersectional analyses, and non-Western cultural contexts.

Indexed as

DemographyHealthcare DisparitiesEthnicityFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsSexism

Identifiers

PMID40011901
PMCPMC11866893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.