ArticleEmpirical software engineering2024
Fairness-aware machine learning engineering: how far are we?
Article in Empirical software engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Machine Learning for Analyzing Real-World Data in Disease Prediction and Management: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Hybrid MLOps framework for automated lifecycle management of adaptive phishing detection models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Action: Racial and Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology.Cureus · 2025Article
- Bridging the Gap: From AI Success in Clinical Trials to Real-World Healthcare Implementation-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- The Sociodemographic Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms: A Biomedical Informatics Perspective.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning is part of the daily life of people and companies worldwide. Unfortunately, bias in machine learning algorithms risks unfairly influencing the decision-making process and reiterating possible discrimination. While the interest of the software engineering community in software fairness is rapidly increasing, there is still a lack of understanding of various aspects connected to fair machine learning engineering, i.e., the software engineering process involved in developing fairness-critical machine learning systems. Questions connected to the practitioners' awareness and maturity about fairness, the skills required to deal with the matter, and the best development phase(s) where fairness should be faced more are just some examples of the knowledge gaps currently open. In this paper, we provide insights into how fairness is perceived and managed in practice, to shed light on the instruments and approaches that practitioners might employ to properly handle fairness. We conducted a survey with 117 professionals who shared their knowledge and experience highlighting the relevance of fairness in practice, and the skills and tools required to handle it. The key results of our study show that fairness is still considered a second-class quality aspect in the development of artificial intelligence systems. The building of specific methods and development environments, other than automated validation tools, might help developers to treat fairness throughout the software lifecycle and revert this trend.
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.