ArticlePhilosophy & technology2022
Ethical Redress of Racial Inequities in AI: Lessons from Decoupling Machine Learning from Optimization in Medical Appointment Scheduling.
Article in Philosophy & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- What are we missing? Reflections on the 'problem' of missed appointments in the UK.NIHR open research · 2026Article
- Identifying Patients at High Risk of Lapses in Diabetic Retinopathy Care: A Machine Learning Study.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Evaluating the impact of data biases on algorithmic fairness and clinical utility of machine learning models for prolonged opioid use prediction.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Future horizons in diabetes: integrating AI and personalized care.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Is Generative AI Increasing the Risk for Technology-Mediated Trauma Among Vulnerable Populations?Nursing inquiry · 2025Article
- Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to advance implementation science: potential opportunities and cautions.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- Adoption, orchestration, and deployment of artificial intelligence within the National Health Service-facilitators and barriers: an expert roundtable discussion.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Attitudinal Predictors of No-Show to Substance Use Disorder Treatment Intake in Veterans.Substance use : research and treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An Artificial Intelligence algorithm trained on data that reflect racial biases may yield racially biased outputs, even if the algorithm on its own is unbiased. For example, algorithms used to schedule medical appointments in the USA predict that Black patients are at a higher risk of no-show than non-Black patients, though technically accurate given existing data that prediction results in Black patients being overwhelmingly scheduled in appointment slots that cause longer wait times than non-Black patients. This perpetuates racial inequity, in this case lesser access to medical care. This gives rise to one type of Accuracy-Fairness trade-off: preserve the efficiency offered by using AI to schedule appointments or discard that efficiency in order to avoid perpetuating ethno-racial disparities. Similar trade-offs arise in a range of AI applications including others in medicine, as well as in education, judicial systems, and public security, among others. This article presents a framework for addressing such trade-offs where Machine Learning and Optimization components of the algorithm are decoupled. Applied to medical appointment scheduling, our framework articulates four approaches intervening in different ways on different components of the algorithm. Each yields specific results, in one case preserving accuracy comparable to the current state-of-the-art while eliminating the disparity.
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.