Papers › Fine-Tune, Don't Prompt, Your Language Model to Identify Biased Language in Clinical Notes
Fine-Tune, Don't Prompt, Your Language Model to Identify Biased Language in Clinical Notes
Isotta Landi, Eugenia Alleva, Nicole Bussola, Rebecca M. Cohen, Sarah Nowlin, Leslee J. Shaw, Alexander W. Charney, Kimberly B. Glazer
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Clinical documentation can contain emotionally charged language with stigmatizing or privileging valences. We present a framework for detecting and classifying such language as stigmatizing, privileging, or neutral. We constructed a curated lexicon of biased terms scored for emotional valence. We then used lexicon-based matching to extract text chunks from OB-GYN delivery notes (Mount Sinai Hospital, NY) and MIMIC-IV discharge summaries across multiple specialties. Three clinicians annotated all chunks, enabling characterization of valence patterns across specialties and healthcare systems. We benchmarked multiple classification strategies (zero-shot prompting, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning) across encoder-only models (GatorTron) and generative large language models (Llama). Fine-tuning with lexically primed inputs consistently outperformed prompting approaches. GatorTron achieved an F1 score of 0.96 on the OB-GYN test set, outperforming larger generative models while requiring minimal prompt engineering and fewer computational resources. External validation on MIMIC-IV revealed limited cross-domain generalizability (F1 < 0.70, 44% drop). Training on the broader MIMIC-IV dataset improved generalizability when testing on OB-GYN (F1 = 0.71, 11% drop), but at the cost of reduced precision. Our findings demonstrate that fine-tuning outperforms prompting for emotional valence classification and that models must be adapted to specific medical specialties to achieve clinically appropriate performance. The same terms can carry different emotional valences across specialties: words with clinical meaning in one context may be stigmatizing in another. For bias detection, where misclassification risks undermining clinician trust or perpetuating patient harm, specialty-specific fine-tuning is essential to capture these semantic shifts. * Equal contribution.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2603.10004, was issued in March 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections