Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38677633›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical informatics2024

A survey of recent methods for addressing AI fairness and bias in biomedicine.

Yifan Yang, Mingquan Lin, Han Zhao, Yifan Peng, Furong Huang, Zhiyong Lu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yifan YangNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA; Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Mingquan LinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, NY, USA.
Han ZhaoDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
Yifan PengDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, NY, USA.
Furong HuangDepartment of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: zhiyong.lu@nih.gov.

Funding

Machine learning for medical imaging: automated disease diagnosis and prognosisZIALM010021 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2022 to 2025
$4.1M
Achieving Model Fairness on Automatic Primary Open-angle Glaucoma ScreeningR21EY035296 · NEI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI PENG, YIFAN · 2023 to 2023
$466k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA LM010021NEI NIH HHS R21 EY035296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to revolutionize clinical practices, including improving diagnostic accuracy and surgical decision-making, while also reducing costs and manpower. However, it is important to recognize that these systems may perpetuate social inequities or demonstrate biases, such as those based on race or gender. Such biases can occur before, during, or after the development of AI models, making it critical to understand and address potential biases to enable the accurate and reliable application of AI models in clinical settings. To mitigate bias concerns during model development, we surveyed recent publications on different debiasing methods in the fields of biomedical natural language processing (NLP) or computer vision (CV). Then we discussed the methods, such as data perturbation and adversarial learning, that have been applied in the biomedical domain to address bias.

methodsWe performed our literature search on PubMed, ACM digital library, and IEEE Xplore of relevant articles published between January 2018 and December 2023 using multiple combinations of keywords. We then filtered the result of 10,041 articles automatically with loose constraints, and manually inspected the abstracts of the remaining 890 articles to identify the 55 articles included in this review. Additional articles in the references are also included in this review. We discuss each method and compare its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we review other potential methods from the general domain that could be applied to biomedicine to address bias and improve fairness.

resultsThe bias of AIs in biomedicine can originate from multiple sources such as insufficient data, sampling bias and the use of health-irrelevant features or race-adjusted algorithms. Existing debiasing methods that focus on algorithms can be categorized into distributional or algorithmic. Distributional methods include data augmentation, data perturbation, data reweighting methods, and federated learning. Algorithmic approaches include unsupervised representation learning, adversarial learning, disentangled representation learning, loss-based methods and causality-based methods.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiasNatural Language ProcessingAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningSurveys and QuestionnairesAIBiasBiomedicineFairness

Identifiers

PMID38677633
PMCPMC11129918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.