ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Validating racial and ethnic non-bias of artificial intelligence decision support for diagnostic breast ultrasound evaluation.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Unveiling Disparities: Analyzing Hispanic Inclusion in Liver Cancer Research Databases in the United States.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Article
- AI-enabled POCUS for breast cancer risk stratification in a resource-limited tertiary clinic.SA journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Performance of a Deep Learning System and Performance of Optometrists for the Detection of Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy Using Colour Retinal Photographs.Bioengineering (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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Breast ultrasound suffers from low positive predictive value and specificity. Artificial intelligence (AI) proposes to improve accuracy, reduce false negatives, reduce inter- and intra-observer variability and decrease the rate of benign biopsies. Perpetuating racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare and patient outcome is a potential risk when incorporating AI-based models into clinical practice; therefore, it is necessary to validate its non-bias before clinical use. Approach: Our retrospective review assesses whether our AI decision support (DS) system demonstrates racial/ethnic bias by evaluating its performance on 1810 biopsy proven cases from nine breast imaging facilities within our health system from January 1, 2018 to October 28, 2021. Patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, AI DS output, and pathology results were obtained. Results: Significant differences in breast pathology incidence were seen across different racial and ethnic groups. Stratified analysis showed that the difference in output by our AI DS system was due to underlying differences in pathology incidence for our specific cohort and did not demonstrate statistically significant bias in output among race/ethnic groups, suggesting similar effectiveness of our AI DS system among different races ( Conclusions: Our study shows promise that an AI DS system may serve as a valuable second opinion in the detection of breast cancer on diagnostic ultrasound without significant racial or ethnic bias. AI tools are not meant to replace the radiologist, but rather to aid in screening and diagnosis without perpetuating racial/ethnic disparities.
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.