Abstract Background Large language models (LLMs) are being used to reduce the administrative burden in long-term care by automatically generating and summarising case notes. However, LLMs can reproduce bias in their training data. This study evaluates gender bias in summaries of long-term care records generated with two state-of-the-art, open-source LLMs released in 2024: Meta’s Llama 3 and Google Gemma. Methods Gender-swapped versions were created of long-term care records for 617 older people from a London local authority. Summaries of male and female versions were generated with Llama 3 and Gemma, as well as benchmark models from Meta and Google released in 2019: T5 and BART. Counterfactual bias was quantified through sentiment analysis alongside an evaluation of word frequency and thematic patterns. Results The benchmark models exhibited some variation in output on the basis of gender. Llama 3 showed no gender-based differences across any metrics. Gemma displayed the most significant gender-based differences. Male summaries focus more on physical and mental health issues. Language used for men was more direct, with women’s needs downplayed more often than men’s. Conclusion Care services are allocated on the basis of need. If women’s health issues are underemphasised, this may lead to gender-based disparities in service receipt. LLMs may offer substantial benefits in easing administrative burden. However, the findings highlight the variation in state-of-the-art LLMs, and the need for evaluation of bias. The methods in this paper provide a practical framework for quantitative evaluation of gender bias in LLMs. The code is available on GitHub.
Sam Rickman (Sun,) studied this question.