Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520723›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Unmasking bias in artificial intelligence: a systematic review of bias detection and mitigation strategies in electronic health record-based models.

Feng Chen, Liqin Wang, Julie Hong, Jiaqi Jiang, Li Zhou

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Artificial Intelligence Across the Drug Development Lifecycle.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Artificial intelligence in orthopaedics: Enhanced examinations, ambient intelligence and the future of clinical practice.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Feng ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Liqin WangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Julie HongWellesley High School, Wellesley, MA 02481, United States.
Jiaqi JiangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Li ZhouDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States.

Funding

Identifying and addressing missingness and bias to enhance discovery from multimodal health dataR01LM014239 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Pengyu Hong, Li Zhou · 2023 to 2026
$1.6M
NLM NIH HHS 1R01LM014239NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLeveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in conjunction with electronic health records (EHRs) holds transformative potential to improve healthcare. However, addressing bias in AI, which risks worsening healthcare disparities, cannot be overlooked. This study reviews methods to handle various biases in AI models developed using EHR data. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, analyzing articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE published between January 01, 2010 and December 17, 2023. The review identified key biases, outlined strategies for detecting and mitigating bias throughout the AI model development, and analyzed metrics for bias assessment.

resultsOf the 450 articles retrieved, 20 met our criteria, revealing 6 major bias types: algorithmic, confounding, implicit, measurement, selection, and temporal. The AI models were primarily developed for predictive tasks, yet none have been deployed in real-world healthcare settings. Five studies concentrated on the detection of implicit and algorithmic biases employing fairness metrics like statistical parity, equal opportunity, and predictive equity. Fifteen studies proposed strategies for mitigating biases, especially targeting implicit and selection biases. These strategies, evaluated through both performance and fairness metrics, predominantly involved data collection and preprocessing techniques like resampling and reweighting. DISCUSSION: This review highlights evolving strategies to mitigate bias in EHR-based AI models, emphasizing the urgent need for both standardized and detailed reporting of the methodologies and systematic real-world testing and evaluation. Such measures are essential for gauging models' practical impact and fostering ethical AI that ensures fairness and equity in healthcare.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiasElectronic Health RecordsAlgorithmsHumansModels, Theoreticalartificial intelligencebiasdeep learningelectronic health recordscoping review

Identifiers

PMID38520723
PMCPMC11031231

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.