Ethical Considerations in Human-Centered AI: Advancing Oncology Chatbots Through Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integration of chatbots in oncology underscores the pressing need for human-centered artificial intelligence (AI) that addresses patient and family concerns with empathy and precision. Human-centered AI emphasizes ethical principles, empathy, and user-centric approaches, ensuring technology aligns with human values and needs. This review critically examines the ethical implications of using large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 and GPT-4 (OpenAI) in oncology chatbots. It examines how these models replicate human-like language patterns, impacting the design of ethical AI systems. The paper identifies key strategies for ethically developing oncology chatbots, focusing on potential biases arising from extensive datasets and neural networks. Specific datasets, such as those sourced from predominantly Western medical literature and patient interactions, may introduce biases by overrepresenting certain demographic groups. Moreover, the training methodologies of LLMs, including fine-tuning processes, can exacerbate these biases, leading to outputs that may disproportionately favor affluent or Western populations while neglecting marginalized communities. By providing examples of biased outputs in oncology chatbots, the review highlights the ethical challenges LLMs present and the need for mitigation strategies. The study emphasizes integrating human-centric values into AI to mitigate these biases, ultimately advocating for the development of oncology chatbots that are aligned with ethical principles and capable of serving diverse patient populations equitably.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".