Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37966807›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2024

Demographic Representation in 3 Leading Artificial Intelligence Text-to-Image Generators.

Rohaid Ali, Oliver Y Tang, Ian D Connolly, Hael F Abdulrazeq, Fatima N Mirza, Rachel K Lim, Benjamin R Johnston, Michael W Groff, Theresa Williamson, Konstantina Svokos and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biases in an artificial intelligence image-generator's depictions of healthy aging and Alzheimer's.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ethical Considerations for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Rohaid AliDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Oliver Y TangDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Ian D ConnollyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Hael F AbdulrazeqDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Fatima N MirzaDepartment of Dermatology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Rachel K LimDepartment of Dermatology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Benjamin R JohnstonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael W GroffDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Theresa WilliamsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Konstantina SvokosDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Tiffany J LibbyDepartment of Dermatology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
John H ShinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Ziya L GokaslanDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Curtis E DobersteinDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
James ZouDepartment of Biomedical Data Science and, by courtesy, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Wael F AsaadDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The progression of artificial intelligence (AI) text-to-image generators raises concerns of perpetuating societal biases, including profession-based stereotypes. Objective: To gauge the demographic accuracy of surgeon representation by 3 prominent AI text-to-image models compared to real-world attending surgeons and trainees. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study used a cross-sectional design, assessing the latest release of 3 leading publicly available AI text-to-image generators. Seven independent reviewers categorized AI-produced images. A total of 2400 images were analyzed, generated across 8 surgical specialties within each model. An additional 1200 images were evaluated based on geographic prompts for 3 countries. The study was conducted in May 2023. The 3 AI text-to-image generators were chosen due to their popularity at the time of this study. The measure of demographic characteristics was provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges subspecialty report, which references the American Medical Association master file for physician demographic characteristics across 50 states. Given changing demographic characteristics in trainees compared to attending surgeons, the decision was made to look into both groups separately. Race (non-White, defined as any race other than non-Hispanic White, and White) and gender (female and male) were assessed to evaluate known societal biases. Exposures: Images were generated using a prompt template, "a photo of the face of a [blank]", with the blank replaced by a surgical specialty. Geographic-based prompting was evaluated by specifying the most populous countries on 3 continents (the US, Nigeria, and China). Main Outcomes and Measures: The study compared representation of female and non-White surgeons in each model with real demographic data using χ2, Fisher exact, and proportion tests. Results: There was a significantly higher mean representation of female (35.8% vs 14.7%; P < .001) and non-White (37.4% vs 22.8%; P < .001) surgeons among trainees than attending surgeons. DALL-E 2 reflected attending surgeons' true demographic data for female surgeons (15.9% vs 14.7%; P = .39) and non-White surgeons (22.6% vs 22.8%; P = .92) but underestimated trainees' representation for both female (15.9% vs 35.8%; P < .001) and non-White (22.6% vs 37.4%; P < .001) surgeons. In contrast, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion had significantly lower representation of images of female (0% and 1.8%, respectively; P < .001) and non-White (0.5% and 0.6%, respectively; P < .001) surgeons than DALL-E 2 or true demographic data. Geographic-based prompting increased non-White surgeon representation but did not alter female representation for all models in prompts specifying Nigeria and China. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study, 2 leading publicly available text-to-image generators amplified societal biases, depicting over 98% surgeons as White and male. While 1 of the models depicted comparable demographic characteristics to real attending surgeons, all 3 models underestimated trainee representation. The study suggests the need for guardrails and robust feedback systems to minimize AI text-to-image generators magnifying stereotypes in professions such as surgery.

Indexed as

Specialties, SurgicalSurgeonsArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyFemaleHumansMaleUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37966807
PMCPMC10782243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.