Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39427028›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

Guidance for unbiased predictive information for healthcare decision-making and equity (GUIDE): considerations when race may be a prognostic factor.

Keren Ladin, John Cuddeback, O Kenrik Duru, Sharad Goel, William Harvey, Jinny G Park, Jessica K Paulus, Joyce Sackey, Richard Sharp, Ewout Steyerberg and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  4. Reporting of race and ethnicity in studies of artificial intelligence in pediatric urology A secondary analysis of the AI-PEDURO online repository.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. AMPREDICT Mobility-4: A Novel Four Category Mobility Outcome Prediction Model for Patients Undergoing Vascular Amputation.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Health Equity and Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

14 authors.

Keren LadinResearch on Ethics, Aging and Community Health (REACH Lab), Medford, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4310-8260
John CuddebackAmerican Medical Group Association, Alexandria, VA, USA.
O Kenrik DuruDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sharad GoelHarvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6103-9318
William HarveyDepartment of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Jinny G ParkPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8537-5749
Jessica K PaulusOM1, Boston, MA, USA.
Joyce SackeyDepartment of Medicine, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Richard SharpCenter for Individualized Medicine Bioethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5441-2084
Ewout SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7787-0122
Berk UstunHalıcıoğlu Data Science Institute, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
David van KlaverenPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Saul N WeingartDepartment of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
David M KentPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. David.Kent@tuftsmedicine.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9205-5070

Funding

Ethics Core (FABRIC)U54HG012510 · NHGRI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI OHNO-MACHADO, LUCILA · 2022 to 2025
$11.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG012510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are tools that compute the risk of an outcome given a set of patient characteristics and are routinely used to inform patients, guide treatment decision-making, and resource allocation. Although much hope has been placed on CPMs to mitigate human biases, CPMs may potentially contribute to racial disparities in decision-making and resource allocation. While some policymakers, professional organizations, and scholars have called for eliminating race as a variable from CPMs, others raise concerns that excluding race may exacerbate healthcare disparities and this controversy remains unresolved. The Guidance for Unbiased predictive Information for healthcare Decision-making and Equity (GUIDE) provides expert guidelines for model developers and health system administrators on the transparent use of race in CPMs and mitigation of algorithmic bias across contexts developed through a 5-round, modified Delphi process from a diverse 14-person technical expert panel (TEP). Deliberations affirmed that race is a social construct and that the goals of prediction are distinct from those of causal inference, and emphasized: the importance of decisional context (e.g., shared decision-making versus healthcare rationing); the conflicting nature of different anti-discrimination principles (e.g., anticlassification versus antisubordination principles); and the importance of identifying and balancing trade-offs in achieving equity-related goals with race-aware versus race-unaware CPMs for conditions where racial identity is prognostically informative. The GUIDE, comprising 31 key items in the development and use of CPMs in healthcare, outlines foundational principles, distinguishes between bias and fairness, and offers guidance for examining subgroup invalidity and using race as a variable in CPMs. This GUIDE presents a living document that supports appraisal and reporting of bias in CPMs to support best practice in CPM development and use.

Identifiers

PMID39427028
PMCPMC11490638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.