ArticlePLOS digital health2022
Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities-A global review.
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.
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
271 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- AI demonstrates comparable diagnostic performance to radiologists in MRI detection of anterior cruciate ligament tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- The Algorithmic Divide: A Systematic Review on AI-Driven Racial Disparities in Healthcare.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Platform Architecture for Hospital Systems: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Advancements in artificial intelligence transforming medical education: a comprehensive overview.Medical education online · 2025Pooled it
- AI in Medical Questionnaires: Scoping ReviewJournal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of machine learning-based prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: Towards improving methods and reporting quality.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Economic, ethical, and regulatory dimensions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: an integrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Tackling algorithmic bias and promoting transparency in health datasets: the STANDING Together consensus recommendations.The Lancet. Digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Generative Artificial Intelligence With Youth Codesign to Create Vaping Awareness Advertisements.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Assessing Algorithmic Fairness With a Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Model in Men of African and Non-African Origin on NRG Oncology Prostate Cancer Phase III Trials.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Trial
- Artificial intelligence readiness in Pakistan's medical and dental education: training-phase decline, a knowledge-practice paradox, and the role of digital determinants of health.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and hearing health: a global evidence review of biases and equity implications for Africa.Global health action · 2026Review
- Real-World Deployment and Operational Evaluation of an On-Premise Thermal IoMT System in an Intensive Care Unit.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Jewish Ethnic Subgroups and Artificial Intelligence Clinical Decision Support.Journal of religion and health · 2026Review
- Recommended guidelines concerning artificial intelligence and health equity: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Medical AI and Human Dignity: A Catholic Normative Ethical Framework in Light of Magnifica Humanitas.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- AI Based Cough Analysis for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Triage and Diagnosis: A Technical Review.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- The Incarnate Clinic: Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas, AI Optimization, and the Bioethics of Technological Colonialism in Philippine Healthcare.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven digital twins in Pharma 4.0: transforming smart manufacturing, predictive quality assurance, and personalized drug delivery.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Endoscopic Ultrasonography: From Image-Based Diagnosis to Cytopathology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
211 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
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
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.