ArticleJMIR AI2026
Implicit Bias in Large Language Model Diagnosis of Eating Disorders: Experimental Vignette Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in mental health applications, yet growing evidence suggests they encode algorithmic biases that influence clinical outputs. Because these models now mediate patient-facing decisions, such biases carry the potential for direct harm. Whether they systematically affect psychiatric diagnosis across demographic groups remains underexplored. Objective: This study aims to examine whether LLMs exhibit implicit demographic biases when generating psychiatric diagnoses. Methods: We developed 1152 synthetic clinical vignettes using a matched-pair design that manipulated gender, race and ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and urbanicity while holding clinical content constant. Vignettes were divided into control (unambiguous anorexia nervosa [AN]) and ambiguous conditions designed to permit differential diagnosis. Ten LLM configurations across 5 model families were tested. Results: Control vignettes produced near-unanimous AN diagnoses (mean 100%, SD 0.1%), while ambiguous vignettes elicited greater variability (mean 23.6%, SD 10.1%). Intermodel agreement was moderate for ambiguous vignettes (Fleiss κ=0.410, 95% CI 0.397-0.422). Mixed-effects logistic regression with LLM as a random intercept revealed significant demographic biases: Black patients were over 6 times more likely to receive a major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosis than White patients with identical presentations (odds ratio [OR] 6.09, 95% CI 5.13-7.24), Latine patients were over 9 times more likely (OR 9.57, 95% CI 8.00-11.45), and Asian patients were nearly 3 times more likely to receive an AN diagnosis (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.44-3.42). Female patients were less likely than males to be diagnosed with AN (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.37-0.49). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that LLMs exhibit systematic demographic biases in psychiatric diagnosis even when clinical content is held constant, revealing measurable patterns that can inform improvements to training data, model architecture, and clinical deployment frameworks.
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.