ArticleJAMA health forum2023
Awareness of Racial and Ethnic Bias and Potential Solutions to Address Bias With Use of Health Care Algorithms.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- GLP-1 receptor agonists and cardiovascular outcomes in Asian, Black or African American, and White populations: An updated meta-analysis including the SOUL trial.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Echo Chambers: Bias and Representation in Cardiac Imaging Datasets for Artificial Intelligence.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Article
- From neuroinflammation to neural inference: computational psychiatry meets precision medicine.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- AI Triage in Primary Care: Building Safer and More Equitable Real-World Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Real World Performance of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score Across Different Races and Ethnicities.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Mitigating Bias in Machine Learning Models with Ethics-Based Initiatives: The Case of Sepsis.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- Exploring the need for a social prescribing pathway in an Australian paediatric allied healthcare intake service: a pilot feasibility and acceptability study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic differences in discontinuation of high-risk medications: a retrospective cohort study.npj aging · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Approach to Responsible AI Development and Deployment.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Digital Psychiatry with Chatbot: Recent Advances and Limitations.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025Review
- Consideration of Sociodemographics in Sepsis Risk Prediction: Implications and Next Steps.Critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Transforming Skin Quality Evaluation With AI: From Subjective Grading to Data-Driven Precision.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- Forecasting school violence risk with incomplete interview data: an automated assessment approach.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluating Equity in Usage and Effectiveness of the CONCERN Early Warning System.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Multimodal AI in Biomedicine: Pioneering the Future of Biomaterials, Diagnostics, and Personalized Healthcare.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Online database of clinical algorithms with race and ethnicity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Digital pathways connecting social and biological factors to health outcomes and equity.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Effective Recruitment or Bot Attack? The Challenge of Internet-Based Research Surveys and Recommendations to Reduce Risk and Improve Robustness.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Algorithms are commonly incorporated into health care decision tools used by health systems and payers and thus affect quality of care, access, and health outcomes. Some algorithms include a patient's race or ethnicity among their inputs and can lead clinicians and decision-makers to make choices that vary by race and potentially affect inequities. Objective: To inform an evidence review on the use of race- and ethnicity-based algorithms in health care by gathering public and stakeholder perspectives about the repercussions of and efforts to address algorithm-related bias. Design, Setting, and Participants: Qualitative methods were used to analyze responses. Responses were initially open coded and then consolidated to create a codebook, with themes and subthemes identified and finalized by consensus. This qualitative study was conducted from May 4, 2021, through December 7, 2022. Forty-two organization representatives (eg, clinical professional societies, universities, government agencies, payers, and health technology organizations) and individuals responded to the request for information. Main Outcomes and Measures: Identification of algorithms with the potential for race- and ethnicity-based biases and qualitative themes. Results: Forty-two respondents identified 18 algorithms currently in use with the potential for bias, including, for example, the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation risk prediction tool and the risk calculator for vaginal birth after cesarean section. The 7 qualitative themes, with 31 subthemes, included the following: (1) algorithms are in widespread use and have significant repercussions, (2) bias can result from algorithms whether or not they explicitly include race, (3) clinicians and patients are often unaware of the use of algorithms and potential for bias, (4) race is a social construct used as a proxy for clinical variables, (5) there is a lack of standardization in how race and social determinants of health are collected and defined, (6) bias can be introduced at all stages of algorithm development, and (7) algorithms should be discussed as part of shared decision-making between the patient and clinician. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found that participants perceived widespread and increasing use of algorithms in health care and lack of oversight, potentially exacerbating racial and ethnic inequities. Increasing awareness for clinicians and patients and standardized, transparent approaches for algorithm development and implementation may be needed to address racial and ethnic biases related to algorithms.
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.