Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38680842›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias.

Oriel Perets, Emanuela Stagno, Eyal Ben Yehuda, Megan McNichol, Leo Anthony Celi, Nadav Rappoport, Matilda Dorotic

Abstract readPreprintScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Oriel PeretsBen-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-2079-6582
Emanuela StagnoUniversity of Sussex Business School, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8026-6030
Eyal Ben YehudaBen-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-1935-5026
Megan McNicholBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6990-3676
Leo Anthony CeliHarvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6712-6626
Nadav RappoportBen-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, Senior Author.ORCID 0000-0002-7218-2558
Matilda DoroticBI Norwegian Business School, Norway, Senior Author.ORCID 0000-0002-1722-9309

Funding

Critical Care Informatics: Ethical considerations around the use and sharing of health-related dataR01EB017205 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CELI, LEO ANTHONY G, MARK, ROGER GREENWOOD · 2014 to 2021
$3.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: 1.1Biases inherent in electronic health records (EHRs), and therefore in medical artificial intelligence (AI) models may significantly exacerbate health inequities and challenge the adoption of ethical and responsible AI in healthcare. Biases arise from multiple sources, some of which are not as documented in the literature. Biases are encoded in how the data has been collected and labeled, by implicit and unconscious biases of clinicians, or by the tools used for data processing. These biases and their encoding in healthcare records undermine the reliability of such data and bias clinical judgments and medical outcomes. Moreover, when healthcare records are used to build data-driven solutions, the biases are further exacerbated, resulting in systems that perpetuate biases and induce healthcare disparities. This literature scoping review aims to categorize the main sources of biases inherent in EHRs. Methods: 1.2We queried PubMed and Web of Science on January 19th, 2023, for peer-reviewed sources in English, published between 2016 and 2023, using the PRISMA approach to stepwise scoping of the literature. To select the papers that empirically analyze bias in EHR, from the initial yield of 430 papers, 27 duplicates were removed, and 403 studies were screened for eligibility. 196 articles were removed after the title and abstract screening, and 96 articles were excluded after the full-text review resulting in a final selection of 116 articles. Results: 1.3Systematic categorizations of diverse sources of bias are scarce in the literature, while the effects of separate studies are often convoluted and methodologically contestable. Our categorization of published empirical evidence identified the six main sources of bias: a) bias arising from past Conclusions: 1.4Machine learning and data-driven solutions can potentially transform healthcare delivery, but not without limitations. The core inputs in the systems (data and human factors) currently contain several sources of bias that are poorly documented and analyzed for remedies. The current evidence heavily focuses on data-related biases, while other sources are less often analyzed or anecdotal. However, these different sources of biases add to one another exponentially. Therefore, to understand the issues holistically we need to explore these diverse sources of bias. While racial biases in EHR have been often documented, other sources of biases have been less frequently investigated and documented (e.g. gender-related biases, sexual orientation discrimination, socially induced biases, and implicit, often unconscious, human-related cognitive biases). Moreover, some existing studies lack causal evidence, illustrating the different prevalences of disease across groups, which does not

Indexed as

AI BiasClinical TrialElectronic Health Records (EHRs)Human BiasImplicit biasMachine Learning (ML)Medical Machinery

Identifiers

PMID38680842
PMCPMC11046491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.