ReviewJournal of biomedical informatics2024
A survey of recent methods for addressing AI fairness and bias in biomedicine.
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.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical challenges in the adaptation of AI predictive models in radiation oncology for gynaecological cancer: a systematic review by the radiation oncology-AI MITO group.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Large Language Models for Mental Health Prediction: Scoping Review of Bias and Clinical Utility Documentation in 2019-2024.JMIR AI · 2026Review
- Tutorial: guidance on the use of large language models for medical research.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- A benchmark study of vision and pathology foundation models for computational pathology.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Cancer-Related Psychological Distress over the Past Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends, Hotspots, and Emerging Areas.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in nephrology: predicting CKD progression and personalizing treatment.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Smart Technology, Fragile Hearts: Navigating AI's Challenges and Limitations in Heart Failure Management.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Dataset effects outweigh algorithmic effects in determining fairness of healthcare machine learning.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Model Autophagy: The Risk of Interpretative Drift in Recursive Medical AI.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Risk prediction in spine surgery: a scoping review of traditional models, artificial intelligence, and the challenge of clinical translation.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Mitigating Bias in Machine Learning Models with Ethics-Based Initiatives: The Case of Sepsis.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- Evaluation and improvement of algorithmic fairness for COVID-19 severity classification using Explainable Artificial Intelligence-based bias mitigation.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Cross-modal bias in medical vision-language models: a pipeline-aware framework for mechanisms, evaluation, and mitigation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- From Biomedical Datasets to Fairness-Aware Recommendations: An Integrated Data Orchestration Pipeline for Binary Clinical Predictions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Human-centered AI in healthcare teams: integrating clinical oversight, EHR auditability, and reimbursement pathways for responsible adoption.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Rethinking network analysis in ethnopharmacology: a multi-omics and AI roadmap to overcome conceptual and methodological biases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Advancing health equity in proactive health management: from data underrepresentation and algorithmic bias to a closed-loop governance framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Benchmarking large language models against clinicians across hospital levels in cardiovascular decision-making: a cross-sectional vignette-based study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Over-detection and over-surveillance in breast screening: current status and the potential for artificial intelligence optimisation.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- The Emerging Role of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Urological Surgery.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.