ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024
Enhancing Bias Assessment for Complex Term Groups in Language Embedding Models: Quantitative Comparison of Methods.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Benchmarking bias in embeddings of healthcare AI models: using SD-WEAT for detection and measurement across sensitive populations.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being adopted to build products and aid in the decision-making process across industries. However, AI systems have been shown to exhibit and even amplify biases, causing a growing concern among people worldwide. Thus, investigating methods of measuring and mitigating bias within these AI-powered tools is necessary. Objective: In natural language processing applications, the word embedding association test (WEAT) is a popular method of measuring bias in input embeddings, a common area of measure bias in AI. However, certain limitations of the WEAT have been identified (ie, their nonrobust measure of bias and their reliance on predefined and limited groups of words or sentences), which may lead to inadequate measurements and evaluations of bias. Thus, this study takes a new approach at modifying this popular measure of bias, with a focus on making it more robust and applicable in other domains. Methods: In this study, we introduce the SD-WEAT, which is a modified version of the WEAT that uses the SD of multiple permutations of the WEATs to calculate bias in input embeddings. With the SD-WEAT, we evaluated the biases and stability of several language embedding models, including Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe), Word2Vec, and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT). Results: This method produces results comparable to those of the WEAT, with strong correlations between the methods' bias scores or effect sizes (r=0.786) and P values (r=0.776), while addressing some of its largest limitations. More specifically, the SD-WEAT is more accessible, as it removes the need to predefine attribute groups, and because the SD-WEAT measures bias over multiple runs rather than one, it reduces the impact of outliers and sample size. Furthermore, the SD-WEAT was found to be more consistent and reliable than its predecessor. Conclusions: Thus, the SD-WEAT shows promise for robustly measuring bias in the input embeddings fed to AI language models.
Indexed as
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.