Papers
arxiv:2610.01963

Counterfactual Auditing of Bias in Open-Source Large Language Models for Clinical Triage

Published on Oct 1
Authors:
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Counterfactual auditing of open-source LLMs for pediatric emergency triage reveals variable fairness risks that do not consistently improve with model size or medical pretraining, supporting lightweight fairness evaluation before deployment.

Emergency department (ED) triage is a high-stakes prioritization task in which demographic, socioeconomic, and system-context information may improperly influence acuity assignment. Although open-source large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for local and privacy-preserving clinical decision support, it remains unclear how counterfactual bias varies across model families, sizes, medical-domain models, and domain-adapted models. We present a comparative counterfactual audit of ten open-source LLMs for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. Starting from real and handbook-style clinical vignettes, we construct paired counterfactual variants that change only one injected demographic, socioeconomic, healthcare-access, behavioral, social, or system-context variable while holding the clinical presentation fixed. Models include Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, a QLoRA fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B, MedGemma variants, MedLLaMA2-7B, GPT-OSS-20B, and GPT-OSS-120B. We measure any counterfactual shift, undertriage, overtriage, shifts greater than one ESI level, mean shift, and mean absolute shift. Counterfactual sensitivity varied substantially and did not consistently decrease with larger model size or medical-domain pretraining. The fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B showed the lowest overall sensitivity, with a 5.27% any-shift rate and mean absolute shift of 0.0534, versus 16.02% and 0.1706 for the base model. Several larger or medical-domain models showed more significant shifts. Stratified and correlation analyses further revealed clinically important directionality and shared failure patterns hidden by aggregate rates. These findings support counterfactual auditing as a lightweight, clinically interpretable framework for comparing fairness risks in open-source LLMs before clinical deployment.

Community

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2610.01963
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.01963 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.01963 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.01963 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.