ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Assessing and mitigating demographic bias in large language models for diagnostic radiology.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into radiology workflows, but their demographic biases have not been evaluated in diagnostic radiology. This study aimed to investigate racial and sex biases in the diagnostic performance of LLMs (text-only and vision models) in radiology and to evaluate whether prompting strategies mitigate these biases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive Diagnosis Please cases published in Radiology from April 1998 to October 2024, excluding cases with sex-specific diseases. For each case, eight race-sex scenarios were generated by altering four race/ethnicity categories (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White) and two sex categories (male, female). Three LLMs (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash) were evaluated as text-only models (medical history and imaging findings) and vision models (medical history and images) using three prompting strategies (basic, self-consistency, chain-of-thought prompting). Generalized estimating equations were used to compare diagnostic accuracy across race/ethnicity, sex, and prompting strategies.
resultsA total of 286 cases were included. Across models and conditions, ten significant race-related and four significant sex-related differences in diagnostic accuracy were observed. Among the four race/ethnicity groups, Black patients were most likely to have significantly lower accuracy (four of the ten statistically significant race-related comparisons [40%]) and least likely to have significantly higher accuracy (1/10 [10%]). Vision models with female patients under basic prompting showed a higher number of significant race-related differences (6/10 [60%]) than vision models with male patients and all text-only models. Text-only and vision models showed no statistically significant differences in diagnostic accuracy across prompting strategies (p = 0.78 and 0.95, respectively); basic and self-consistency prompting produced ten and four significant race- or sex-related differences, respectively, whereas no significant differences were observed with chain-of-thought prompting.
conclusionLarge language models exhibited racial and sex biases in diagnostic radiology, and chain-of-thought prompting may help mitigate these biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.