ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Racial differences in laboratory testing as a potential mechanism for bias in AI: A matched cohort analysis in emergency department visits.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Laboratory Test Ordering in Emergency Departments Using Integrated Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records: Machine Learning Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Diversity and Representation in Cardiovascular Research: Evidence Gaps, Emerging Models, and Policy Implications.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Reaffirming DEI as a central value of JCM.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AI models are often trained using available laboratory test results. Racial differences in laboratory testing may bias AI models for clinical decision support, amplifying existing inequities. This study aims to measure the extent of racial differences in laboratory testing in adult emergency department (ED) visits. We conducted a retrospective 1:1 exact-matched cohort study of Black and White adult patients seen in the ED, matching on age, biological sex, chief complaint, and ED triage score, using ED visits at two U.S. teaching hospitals: Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (U-M, 2015-2022), and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (BIDMC, 2011-2019). Post-matching, White patients had significantly higher testing rates than Black patients for complete blood count (BIDMC difference: 1.7%, 95% CI: 1.1% to 2.4%, U-M difference: 2.0%, 95% CI: 1.6% to 2.5%), metabolic panel (BIDMC: 1.5%, 95% CI: 0.9% to 2.1%, U-M: 1.9%, 95% CI: 1.4% to 2.4%), and blood culture (BIDMC: 0.9%, 95% CI: 0.5% to 1.2%, U-M: 0.7%, 95% CI: 0.4% to 1.1%). Black patients had significantly higher testing rates for troponin than White patients (BIDMC: -2.1%, 95% CI: -2.6% to -1.6%, U-M: -2.2%, 95% CI: -2.7% to -1.8%). The observed racial testing differences may impact AI models trained using available laboratory results. The findings also motivate further study of how such differences arise and how to mitigate potential impacts on AI models.
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.