Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812532›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2022

Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities-A global review.

Leo Anthony Celi, Jacqueline Cellini, Marie-Laure Charpignon, Edward Christopher Dee, Franck Dernoncourt, Rene Eber, William Greig Mitchell, Lama Moukheiber, Julian Schirmer, Julia Situ and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 271 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
271citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

271 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. AI in Medical Questionnaires: Scoping ReviewJournal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

211 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors.

Leo Anthony CeliMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Jacqueline CelliniHarvard Medical School, Department of Library Services, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Marie-Laure CharpignonMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute for Data, Systems and Society, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5786-2627
Edward Christopher DeeHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6119-0889
Franck DernoncourtAdobe Inc, Adobe Research, San Jose, CA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1119-1346
Rene EberMontpellier University, Montpellier Research in Management, Montpellier, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4347-0198
William Greig MitchellHarvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2122-6741
Lama MoukheiberMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Julian SchirmerMontpellier University, Montpellier Research in Management, Montpellier, France.
Julia SituMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Molecular Biology, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.
Joseph PaguioEinstein Medical Center Philadelphia, Department of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4054-5112
Joel ParkBeiGene, Applied Innovation, Cambridge, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1319-6893
Judy Gichoya WawiraEmory University, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Informatics, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Seth YaoEinstein Medical Center Philadelphia, Department of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0851-6223
for MIT Critical Data

Funding

Critical Care Informatics: Ethical considerations around the use and sharing of health-related dataR01EB017205 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CELI, LEO ANTHONY G, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2014 to 2021
$3.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile artificial intelligence (AI) offers possibilities of advanced clinical prediction and decision-making in healthcare, models trained on relatively homogeneous datasets, and populations poorly-representative of underlying diversity, limits generalisability and risks biased AI-based decisions. Here, we describe the landscape of AI in clinical medicine to delineate population and data-source disparities.

methodsWe performed a scoping review of clinical papers published in PubMed in 2019 using AI techniques. We assessed differences in dataset country source, clinical specialty, and author nationality, sex, and expertise. A manually tagged subsample of PubMed articles was used to train a model, leveraging transfer-learning techniques (building upon an existing BioBERT model) to predict eligibility for inclusion (original, human, clinical AI literature). Of all eligible articles, database country source and clinical specialty were manually labelled. A BioBERT-based model predicted first/last author expertise. Author nationality was determined using corresponding affiliated institution information using Entrez Direct. And first/last author sex was evaluated using the Gendarize.io API.

resultsOur search yielded 30,576 articles, of which 7,314 (23.9%) were eligible for further analysis. Most databases came from the US (40.8%) and China (13.7%). Radiology was the most represented clinical specialty (40.4%), followed by pathology (9.1%). Authors were primarily from either China (24.0%) or the US (18.4%). First and last authors were predominately data experts (i.e., statisticians) (59.6% and 53.9% respectively) rather than clinicians. And the majority of first/last authors were male (74.1%).

interpretationU.S. and Chinese datasets and authors were disproportionately overrepresented in clinical AI, and almost all of the top 10 databases and author nationalities were from high income countries (HICs). AI techniques were most commonly employed for image-rich specialties, and authors were predominantly male, with non-clinical backgrounds. Development of technological infrastructure in data-poor regions, and diligence in external validation and model re-calibration prior to clinical implementation in the short-term, are crucial in ensuring clinical AI is meaningful for broader populations, and to avoid perpetuating global health inequity.

Identifiers

PMID36812532
PMCPMC9931338

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.