Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34912242›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2021

Gender Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Severity Prediction at an Early Stage of COVID-19.

Heewon Chung, Chul Park, Wu Seong Kang, Jinseok Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sociodemographic reporting in videomics research: a review of practices in otolaryngology - head and neck surgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Uncovering the gender health data gap.Cadernos de saude publica · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Heewon ChungDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Electronics and Information, Kyung Hee University, Yongin-si, South Korea.
Chul ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, South Korea.
Wu Seong KangDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Cheju Halla General Hospital, Jeju-si, South Korea.
Jinseok LeeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Electronics and Information, Kyung Hee University, Yongin-si, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have been applied in various medical domains to predict patient outcomes with high accuracy. As AI becomes more widely adopted, the problem of model bias is increasingly apparent. In this study, we investigate the model bias that can occur when training a model using datasets for only one particular gender and aim to present new insights into the bias issue. For the investigation, we considered an AI model that predicts severity at an early stage based on the medical records of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. For 5,601 confirmed COVID-19 patients, we used 37 medical records, namely, basic patient information, physical index, initial examination findings, clinical findings, comorbidity diseases, and general blood test results at an early stage. To investigate the gender-based AI model bias, we trained and evaluated two separate models-one that was trained using only the male group, and the other using only the female group. When the model trained by the male-group data was applied to the female testing data, the overall accuracy decreased-sensitivity from 0.93 to 0.86, specificity from 0.92 to 0.86, accuracy from 0.92 to 0.86, balanced accuracy from 0.93 to 0.86, and area under the curve (AUC) from 0.97 to 0.94. Similarly, when the model trained by the female-group data was applied to the male testing data, once again, the overall accuracy decreased-sensitivity from 0.97 to 0.90, specificity from 0.96 to 0.91, accuracy from 0.96 to 0.91, balanced accuracy from 0.96 to 0.90, and AUC from 0.97 to 0.95. Furthermore, when we evaluated each gender-dependent model with the test data from the same gender used for training, the resultant accuracy was also lower than that from the unbiased model.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence biasCOVID-19feature importancegender dependent biasseverity prediction

Identifiers

PMID34912242
PMCPMC8667070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.