ReviewPLOS digital health2024
Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making.
Review in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07179861 (A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Vignette-Based Observational Study Comparing Clinical Decision-Making Performance of Pediatriciansand AI Models), which is not on this map. Cited by 256 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Vignette-Based Observational Study Comparing Clinical Decision-Making Performance of Pediatriciansand AI Models
Who cites it
256 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-Facing AI-Enabled Digital Health Technologies and Quality of Life in Cancer: Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Governance in Health Systems: Systematic Review of Frameworks and Integrative Model Proposal.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: Focus on Hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Pooled it
- Explainability, Bias and Generalizability of AI Models in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Model Interpretability and Equity.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Applications of Natural Language Processing and Large Language Models for Social Determinants of Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence for Sepsis Prediction in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2026Pooled it
- Advancements in artificial intelligence transforming medical education: a comprehensive overview.Medical education online · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in rehabilitation: a living systematic mapping review - first release.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Benchmarking Generative Artificial Intelligence for the Analysis of Racial and Gender Disparities in Academic Ophthalmology.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and radiomics in bladder cancer MRI: a scoping review of applications, performance, and barriers to clinical translation.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- When the algorithm passes the test but fails the patient.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Ethical Dimensions of Bariatric Surgery: A Narrative Review of Principles, Challenges, and Practice Implications.Obesity surgery · 2026Review
- Optimizing the delivery of radiotherapy with artificial intelligence.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- AI Based Cough Analysis for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Triage and Diagnosis: A Technical Review.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Precision Bisphosphonate Therapy in Osteoporosis: Mechanisms, Clinical Applications, Risks, and Future Directions.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- Beyond Traditional Risk Scores: Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Plaque Characterization and Personalized Atherosclerosis Management.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- The Incarnate Clinic: Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas, AI Optimization, and the Bioethics of Technological Colonialism in Philippine Healthcare.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for early sepsis detection and dynamic prognostication in onco-critical care.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- A five-phase evaluation framework for diagnostic and predictive medical artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Empowered Nuclear Medicine Education, Part 3: Practical AI Applications for Learners.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2026Article
196 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biases in medical artificial intelligence (AI) arise and compound throughout the AI lifecycle. These biases can have significant clinical consequences, especially in applications that involve clinical decision-making. Left unaddressed, biased medical AI can lead to substandard clinical decisions and the perpetuation and exacerbation of longstanding healthcare disparities. We discuss potential biases that can arise at different stages in the AI development pipeline and how they can affect AI algorithms and clinical decision-making. Bias can occur in data features and labels, model development and evaluation, deployment, and publication. Insufficient sample sizes for certain patient groups can result in suboptimal performance, algorithm underestimation, and clinically unmeaningful predictions. Missing patient findings can also produce biased model behavior, including capturable but nonrandomly missing data, such as diagnosis codes, and data that is not usually or not easily captured, such as social determinants of health. Expertly annotated labels used to train supervised learning models may reflect implicit cognitive biases or substandard care practices. Overreliance on performance metrics during model development may obscure bias and diminish a model's clinical utility. When applied to data outside the training cohort, model performance can deteriorate from previous validation and can do so differentially across subgroups. How end users interact with deployed solutions can introduce bias. Finally, where models are developed and published, and by whom, impacts the trajectories and priorities of future medical AI development. Solutions to mitigate bias must be implemented with care, which include the collection of large and diverse data sets, statistical debiasing methods, thorough model evaluation, emphasis on model interpretability, and standardized bias reporting and transparency requirements. Prior to real-world implementation in clinical settings, rigorous validation through clinical trials is critical to demonstrate unbiased application. Addressing biases across model development stages is crucial for ensuring all patients benefit equitably from the future of medical AI.
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.