Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38100101›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Guiding Principles to Address the Impact of Algorithm Bias on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care.

Marshall H Chin, Nasim Afsar-Manesh, Arlene S Bierman, Christine Chang, Caleb J Colón-Rodríguez, Prashila Dullabh, Deborah Guadalupe Duran, Malika Fair, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Maia Hightower and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

124 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 197 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Reporting of race and ethnicity in studies of artificial intelligence in pediatric urology A secondary analysis of the AI-PEDURO online repository.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Marshall H ChinUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Nasim Afsar-ManeshOracle Health, Austin, Texas.
Arlene S BiermanAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Christine ChangAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Caleb J Colón-RodríguezUS Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Prashila DullabhNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland.
Deborah Guadalupe DuranNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, Maryland.
Malika FairAssociation of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Tina Hernandez-BoussardStanford University, Stanford, California.
Maia HightowerEquality AI, Park City, Utah.
Anjali JainAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
William B JordanAmerican Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Stephen KonyaOffice of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Washington, DC.
Roslyn Holliday MooreUS Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Tamra Tyree MoorePrudential Financial, Arlington, Virginia.
Richard RodriguezNORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Gauher ShaheenElevance Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Lynne Page SnyderNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mithuna SrinivasanNORC at the University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland.
Craig A UmscheidAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Lucila Ohno-MachadoYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USNational Opinion Research Center · USOffice of Minority Health · USUniversity of Chicago · USAmerican Medical Association · USAssociation of American Medical Colleges · USEquality Now · USNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities · USOffice of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology · USPrudential Financial (United States) · USStanford University · USYale University · US

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical & Translational Education and Research (Spectrum)UL1TR003142 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI O'HARA, RUTH M · 2019 to 2023
$45.0M
Genetic & Social Determinants of Health: Center for Admixture Science and TechnologyRM1HG011558 · NHGRI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI FRAZER, KELLY A, GYMREK, MELISSA · 2021 to 2025
$11.2M
Ethics Core (FABRIC)U54HG012510 · NHGRI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2022 to 2025
$11.2M
Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI MILDA Renne SAUNDERS · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142NHGRI NIH HHS RM1 HG011558NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG012510NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Health care algorithms are used for diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, risk stratification, and allocation of resources. Bias in the development and use of algorithms can lead to worse outcomes for racial and ethnic minoritized groups and other historically marginalized populations such as individuals with lower income. Objective: To provide a conceptual framework and guiding principles for mitigating and preventing bias in health care algorithms to promote health and health care equity. Evidence Review: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities convened a diverse panel of experts to review evidence, hear from stakeholders, and receive community feedback. Findings: The panel developed a conceptual framework to apply guiding principles across an algorithm's life cycle, centering health and health care equity for patients and communities as the goal, within the wider context of structural racism and discrimination. Multiple stakeholders can mitigate and prevent bias at each phase of the algorithm life cycle, including problem formulation (phase 1); data selection, assessment, and management (phase 2); algorithm development, training, and validation (phase 3); deployment and integration of algorithms in intended settings (phase 4); and algorithm monitoring, maintenance, updating, or deimplementation (phase 5). Five principles should guide these efforts: (1) promote health and health care equity during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle; (2) ensure health care algorithms and their use are transparent and explainable; (3) authentically engage patients and communities during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle and earn trustworthiness; (4) explicitly identify health care algorithmic fairness issues and trade-offs; and (5) establish accountability for equity and fairness in outcomes from health care algorithms. Conclusions and Relevance: Multiple stakeholders must partner to create systems, processes, regulations, incentives, standards, and policies to mitigate and prevent algorithmic bias. Reforms should implement guiding principles that support promotion of health and health care equity in all phases of the algorithm life cycle as well as transparency and explainability, authentic community engagement and ethical partnerships, explicit identification of fairness issues and trade-offs, and accountability for equity and fairness.

Indexed as

Health EquityHealth PromotionAcademies and InstitutesAlgorithmsHumansRacial GroupsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38100101
PMCPMC11181958
OpenAlexW4389794809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.