研究背景与设计
然后下面的p，然后研究结果
，然后研究结论与建议
？不对，但是要保留所有信息，不能增删改内容。哦，不对，等下，要注意不能改内容，所以小节的标题？不对，哦不对，用户说“长文用/
划分小节”，但是小节标题是不是可以用原文里的内容？不对，不对，不能增删改内容，哦，不对，等下，是不是我理解错了？哦，不对，标题不能用自己加的，因为要保留原文所有信息，不能增删，那如果原文没有标题，是不是就不需要加h2h3？不对，等下，再看原文的结构，有没有逻辑分段？ 等下，再仔细理： 第一部分：背景和研究设计：从开头到“answered the same vignettes and the 50 clinician-written Q-Pain cases.” 这部分是说研究的背景、两个研究的设计。 第二部分：研究结果：从“In this single-prompt, JSON-constrained task”到“favoured Black patients.” 第三部分：结果的补充说明和结论建议：从“Models differed far more from one another”到最后。 不对，但是如果加h2的话，标题是啥？哦，不对，用户说“保留原文所有信息，不得增删改内容”，那我自己加的标题算不算增加内容？哦，哦对哦，不能增删，那是不是不能自己加小标题？那这样的话，原文是一整段，那用一个p包裹？不对，等下，再看用户的规则，规则2是“每个自然段落用
包裹，长文用
/
划分小节”，如果原文没有小标题，那是不是就不需要加，因为加了就是增加内容了。哦对，不能增删改，所以不能自己编小标题。那现在看原文的内容，有没有可以拆分成自然段落的？不对，原文用户给的是一整段，那是不是就一个p？不对，等下，再看里面有没有需要加strong的？比如重要的句子，比如开头的“Racial and ethnic minority patients receive less pain treatment than non-Hispanic White patients, and large language models (LLMs) used as medical AI could reproduce that bias.” 这个是核心背景，可以加strong？然后还有结论的那句“Fairness audits of clinical AI should use several names per group, pair comparisons on the seed, report the noise floor and test each deployed configuration.” 也可以加strong？ 等下，再检查：有没有列表？没有。引用？没有。代码？没有。那结构就是：
Racial and ethnic minority patients receive less pain treatment than non-Hispanic White patients, and large language models (LLMs) used as medical AI could reproduce that bias. Prior audits tested a few proprietary models, stated race explicitly and rarely measured the models' own response instability. In exploratory, non-preregistered analyses, Study 1 had four open-weight LLMs assess six acute-pain vignettes in every combination of four races and two sexes, with identity stated or cued only by a name (two names per group), comparing each identity with a White male reference on the same case and sampling seed. In Study 2, 24 configurations of 17 models, including OpenAI's GPT-4.1 mini and gpt-oss, Anthropic's Claude Haiku 4.5, Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash, Meta's Llama, DeepSeek and Qwen, with reasoning on and off and at two precisions, answered the same vignettes and the 50 clinician-written Q-Pain cases. In this single-prompt, JSON-constrained task, no difference survived correction in Study 1, none of 1,386 comparisons survived the false discovery rate in Study 2, and every pain-severity difference was equivalent to zero within one point on a 0-10 scale (within a quarter point for 237 of 238 Q-Pain comparisons). Opioid decisions were bounded less precisely (Study 1 could not exclude differences of about 20 percentage points), so they show no detected difference, not proof of none. The few differences surviving correction within a model favoured Black patients. Models differed far more from one another and across their own settings than between patients (the reference patient received the high opioid dose in 6% to 93% of responses), although serving software, provider and prompt format also differed. Fairness audits of clinical AI should use several names per group, pair comparisons on the seed, report the noise floor and test each deployed configuration.
不对，等下，有没有可能拆分段落？哦，原文用户给的是一整段，但是是不是可以按逻辑拆分？不对，用户说“每个自然段落用包裹”，原文的自然段落就是一整段对吧？因为用户给的正文是连续的一段，没有换行。那这样就可以？等下，再检查有没有增删改内容：所有内容都在，对吧？对的，strong的添加是允许的，规则说重要句子可用strong。那有没有问题？哦，等下，再仔细看，有没有需要加h2h3的？但是如果没有原文的标题，加了自己编的就属于增加内容了，违反规则4，所以不加。对，因为规则4说不得增删改内容，所以不能自己加小标题。那最终的HTML片段就是上面的那个？等下，再核对原文的每一句话，是不是都在里面： 1. Racial and ethnic minority patients receive less pain treatment than non-Hispanic White patients, and large language models (LLMs) used as medical AI could reproduce that bias. 有，加strong了。 2. Prior audits tested a few proprietary models, stated race explicitly and rarely measured the models' own response instability.