Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38929638›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024

The Sociodemographic Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms: A Biomedical Informatics Perspective.

Gillian Franklin, Rachel Stephens, Muhammad Piracha, Shmuel Tiosano, Frank Lehouillier, Ross Koppel, Peter L Elkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Gillian FranklinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.
Rachel StephensDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.
Muhammad PirachaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-5626-2178
Shmuel TiosanoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1748-4297
Frank LehouillierDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.
Ross KoppelDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.
Peter L ElkinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.

Funding

University of Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute - Supplement SchulyerUL1TR001412 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MURPHY, TIMOTHY F · 2015 to 2024
$33.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001412NIH HHS T15012495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence models represented in machine learning algorithms are promising tools for risk assessment used to guide clinical and other health care decisions. Machine learning algorithms, however, may house biases that propagate stereotypes, inequities, and discrimination that contribute to socioeconomic health care disparities. The biases include those related to some sociodemographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, insurance, and socioeconomic status from the use of erroneous electronic health record data. Additionally, there is concern that training data and algorithmic biases in large language models pose potential drawbacks. These biases affect the lives and livelihoods of a significant percentage of the population in the United States and globally. The social and economic consequences of the associated backlash cannot be underestimated. Here, we outline some of the sociodemographic, training data, and algorithmic biases that undermine sound health care risk assessment and medical decision-making that should be addressed in the health care system. We present a perspective and overview of these biases by gender, race, ethnicity, age, historically marginalized communities, algorithmic bias, biased evaluations, implicit bias, selection/sampling bias, socioeconomic status biases, biased data distributions, cultural biases and insurance status bias, conformation bias, information bias and anchoring biases and make recommendations to improve large language model training data, including de-biasing techniques such as counterfactual role-reversed sentences during knowledge distillation, fine-tuning, prefix attachment at training time, the use of toxicity classifiers, retrieval augmented generation and algorithmic modification to mitigate the biases moving forward.

Indexed as

algorithmsartificial intelligencebiasbiomedical informaticselectronic health recordshealth caremachine learningmodelssociodemographic

Identifiers

PMID38929638
PMCPMC11204917

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.