ArticleCureus2024
What Goes In, Must Come Out: Generative Artificial Intelligence Does Not Present Algorithmic Bias Across Race and Gender in Medical Residency Specialties.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Visual representation bias in artificial intelligence-generated depictions of anesthesia, pain, and intensive care professionals.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Preparing for AI in Resident Selection: A Scoping Review of Current Applications and Limitations.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Models With Prognostic Implications for Predicting Gastrointestinal Bleeding After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Guiding Personalized Medicine: Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
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
Objective Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made significant inroads into various domains, including medicine, raising concerns about algorithmic bias. This study investigates the presence of biases in generative AI programs, with a specific focus on gender and racial representations across 19 medical residency specialties. Methodology This comparative study utilized DALL-E2 to generate faces representing 19 distinct residency training specialties, as identified by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which were then compared to the AAMC's residency specialty breakdown with respect to race and gender. Results Our findings reveal an alignment between OpenAI's DALL-E2's predictions and the current demographic landscape of medical residents, suggesting an absence of algorithmic bias in this AI model. Conclusion This revelation gives rise to important ethical considerations. While AI excels at pattern recognition, it inherits and mirrors the biases present in its training data. To combat AI bias, addressing real-world disparities is imperative. Initiatives to promote inclusivity and diversity within medicine are commendable and contribute to reshaping medical education. This study underscores the need for ongoing efforts to dismantle barriers and foster inclusivity in historically male-dominated medical fields, particularly for underrepresented populations. Ultimately, our findings underscore the crucial role of real-world data quality in mitigating AI bias. As AI continues to shape healthcare and education, the pursuit of equitable, unbiased AI applications should remain at the forefront of these transformative endeavors.
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.