Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39509461›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2024

Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making.

James L Cross, Michael A Choma, John A Onofrey

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
256citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

NCT07179861 completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Vignette-Based Observational Study Comparing Clinical Decision-Making Performance of Pediatriciansand AI Models

TypeobservationalSponsorHaseki Training and Research HospitalRan2025 to 2025Enrolled30ConditionsArtificial Intelligence (AI) in Diagnosis, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Clinical Decision-making, PediatricsArmsAI Suggestions (Anonymized 5-tool panel), Confidence Rating Task (1-10 Likert)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

256 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Artificial intelligence in rehabilitation: a living systematic mapping review - first release.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

196 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

James L CrossYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9690-128X
Michael A ChomaDepartment of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
John A OnofreyDepartment of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9432-0448

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39509461
PMCPMC11542778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.