Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37347528›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Artificial Intelligence Bias in Health Care: Web-Based Survey.

Carina Nina Vorisek, Caroline Stellmach, Paula Josephine Mayer, Sophie Anne Ines Klopfenstein, Dominik Martin Bures, Anke Diehl, Maike Henningsen, Kerstin Ritter, Sylvia Thun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

9 authors.

Carina Nina VorisekCore Facility Digital Medicine and Interoperability, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7499-8115
Caroline StellmachCore Facility Digital Medicine and Interoperability, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6798-8533
Paula Josephine MayerCore Facility Digital Medicine and Interoperability, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6441-5913
Sophie Anne Ines KlopfensteinCore Facility Digital Medicine and Interoperability, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8470-2258
Dominik Martin BuresStabsstelle Digitale Transformation, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0005-5930-2120
Anke DiehlStabsstelle Digitale Transformation, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7890-6107
Maike HenningsenFaculty of Health, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-9826-4472
Kerstin RitterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7115-0020
Sylvia ThunCore Facility Digital Medicine and Interoperability, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3346-6806

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResources are increasingly spent on artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for medical applications aiming to improve diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases. While the need for transparency and reduction of bias in data and algorithm development has been addressed in past studies, little is known about the knowledge and perception of bias among AI developers.

objectiveThis study's objective was to survey AI specialists in health care to investigate developers' perceptions of bias in AI algorithms for health care applications and their awareness and use of preventative measures.

methodsA web-based survey was provided in both German and English language, comprising a maximum of 41 questions using branching logic within the REDCap web application. Only the results of participants with experience in the field of medical AI applications and complete questionnaires were included for analysis. Demographic data, technical expertise, and perceptions of fairness, as well as knowledge of biases in AI, were analyzed, and variations among gender, age, and work environment were assessed.

resultsA total of 151 AI specialists completed the web-based survey. The median age was 30 (IQR 26-39) years, and 67% (101/151) of respondents were male. One-third rated their AI development projects as fair (47/151, 31%) or moderately fair (51/151, 34%), 12% (18/151) reported their AI to be barely fair, and 1% (2/151) not fair at all. One participant identifying as diverse rated AI developments as barely fair, and among the 2 undefined gender participants, AI developments were rated as barely fair or moderately fair, respectively. Reasons for biases selected by respondents were lack of fair data (90/132, 68%), guidelines or recommendations (65/132, 49%), or knowledge (60/132, 45%). Half of the respondents worked with image data (83/151, 55%) from 1 center only (76/151, 50%), and 35% (53/151) worked with national data exclusively.

conclusionsThis study shows that the perception of biases in AI overall is moderately fair. Gender minorities did not once rate their AI development as fair or very fair. Therefore, further studies need to focus on minorities and women and their perceptions of AI. The results highlight the need to strengthen knowledge about bias in AI and provide guidelines on preventing biases in AI health care applications.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceAdultBiasDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansInternetMaleageAIapplicationartificial intelligencebiasclinicaldeep learningdevelopmentdiagnosisdigital healthdiseaseFAIR datagenderhealth caremachine learningonlinepreventionsurveytreatment

Identifiers

PMID37347528
PMCPMC10337406

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.