ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2022
Investigating for bias in healthcare algorithms: a sex-stratified analysis of supervised machine learning models in liver disease prediction.
Review in BMJ health & care informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sex bias consideration in healthcare machine-learning research: a systematic review in rheumatoid arthritis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Donor-specific, but not sex-specific, signatures dominate cell-type classification in lung scRNA-seq data.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Fertility care in the age of algorithms: opportunities and risks of AI and social media integration in reproductive medicine.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence predicts sex-specific risk of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Biology of sex differences · 2026Article
- Machine learning for evolutionary genetics and molecular evolution.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2026Review
- Sex disparities in deep learning estimation of ejection fraction from cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- An AI-enhanced NHS will rely on clinical guidelines, but what if the evidence is inequitable?BMJ public health · 2026Article
- From resistance to readiness: faculty development as the key to AI literacy in public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Trustworthy AI for medical decisions: Adversarially robust and fair machine learning prediction for Parkinson's disease.PloS one · 2026Article
- A comprehensive narrative review of artificial intelligence use in the diagnosis and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in hepatopathy diagnosis and treatment: Big data analytics, deep learning, and clinical prediction models.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Comparing the predictive performance of diabetes complications using administrative health data and clinical data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Detecting, Characterizing, and Mitigating Implicit and Explicit Racial Biases in Health Care Datasets With Subgroup Learnability: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Mitigated deployment strategy for ethical AI in clinical settings.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- A supervised machine learning approach with feature selection for sex-specific biomarker prediction.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025Article
- The Limitations of Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Oncology.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Public Awareness of and Attitudes Toward the Use of AI in Pathology Research and Practice: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Optimizing ensemble machine learning models for accurate liver disease prediction in healthcare.PloS one · 2025Article
- Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Indian Liver Patient Dataset (ILPD) is used extensively to create algorithms that predict liver disease. Given the existing research describing demographic inequities in liver disease diagnosis and management, these algorithms require scrutiny for potential biases. We address this overlooked issue by investigating ILPD models for sex bias.
methodsFollowing our literature review of ILPD papers, the models reported in existing studies are recreated and then interrogated for bias. We define four experiments, training on sex-unbalanced/balanced data, with and without feature selection. We build random forests (RFs), support vector machines (SVMs), Gaussian Naïve Bayes and logistic regression (LR) classifiers, running experiments 100 times, reporting average results with SD.
resultsWe reproduce published models achieving accuracies of >70% (LR 71.31% (2.37 SD) - SVM 79.40% (2.50 SD)) and demonstrate a previously unobserved performance disparity. Across all classifiers females suffer from a higher false negative rate (FNR). Presently, RF and LR classifiers are reported as the most effective models, yet in our experiments they demonstrate the greatest FNR disparity (RF; -21.02%; LR; -24.07%). DISCUSSION: We demonstrate a sex disparity that exists in published ILPD classifiers. In practice, the higher FNR for females would manifest as increased rates of missed diagnosis for female patients and a consequent lack of appropriate care. Our study demonstrates that evaluating biases in the initial stages of machine learning can provide insights into inequalities in current clinical practice, reveal pathophysiological differences between the male and females, and can mitigate the digitisation of inequalities into algorithmic systems.
conclusionOur findings are important to medical data scientists, clinicians and policy-makers involved in the implementation medical artificial intelligence systems. An awareness of the potential biases of these systems is essential in preventing the digital exacerbation of healthcare inequalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.