ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2022
Clinical Informatics Approaches to Understand and Address Cancer Disparities.
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable deep learning approaches and clinical insights for cancer biomarker identification.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Informatics at the Frontier of Cancer Research.Cancer research · 2025Review
- AI-driven biomarker discovery: enhancing precision in cancer diagnosis and prognosis.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Review
- Inclusive Digital Health.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Cancer Informatics 2022: Real-World Data Yields Important Insights into the Conduct of Clinical Trials and Registries.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDisparities in cancer incidence and outcomes across race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geography are well-documented, but their etiologies are often poorly understood and multifactorial. Clinical informatics can provide tools to better understand and address these disparities by enabling high-throughput analysis of multiple types of data. Here, we review recent efforts in clinical informatics to study and measure disparities in cancer.
methodsWe carried out a narrative review of clinical informatics studies related to cancer disparities and bias published from 2018-2021, with a focus on domains such as real-world data (RWD) analysis, natural language processing (NLP), radiomics, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics.
resultsClinical informatics studies that investigated cancer disparities across race, ethnicity, gender, and age were identified. Most cancer disparities work within clinical informatics used RWD analysis, NLP, radiomics, and genomics. Emerging applications of clinical informatics to understand cancer disparities, including proteomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics, were less well represented in the literature but are promising future research avenues. Algorithmic bias was identified as an important consideration when developing and implementing cancer clinical informatics techniques, and efforts to address this bias were reviewed.
conclusionsIn recent years, clinical informatics has been used to probe a range of data sources to understand cancer disparities across different populations. As informatics tools become integrated into clinical decision-making, attention will need to be paid to ensure that algorithmic bias does not amplify existing disparities. In our increasingly interconnected medical systems, clinical informatics is poised to untap the full potential of multi-platform health data to address cancer disparities.
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.