Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39737346›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Algorithmic individual fairness and healthcare: a scoping review.

Joshua W Anderson, Shyam Visweswaran

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Delphi Study to Identify Priority Indicators for Formulary Selection of Innovative Anticancer Drugs in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Effect of Enforcing Fairness on Reshaping Explanations in Machine Learning Models.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. In defense of empathic informatics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joshua W AndersonIntelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1543-6491
Shyam VisweswaranIntelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2079-8684

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001857 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2016 to 2025
$129.3M
The internship in Biomedical Research, Informatics, and Computer Science (iBRIC): Biomedical Informatics and Data Science research experiences for students from Minority Serving InstitutionsT15LM007059 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HARRY S HOCHHEISER · 1987 to 2026
$23.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001857NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Statistical and artificial intelligence algorithms are increasingly being developed for use in healthcare. These algorithms may reflect biases that magnify disparities in clinical care, and there is a growing need for understanding how algorithmic biases can be mitigated in pursuit of algorithmic fairness. We conducted a scoping review on algorithmic individual fairness (IF) to understand the current state of research in the metrics and methods developed to achieve IF and their applications in healthcare. Materials and Methods: We searched four databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and medRxiv for algorithmic IF metrics, algorithmic bias mitigation, and healthcare applications. Our search was restricted to articles published between January 2013 and November 2024. We identified 2498 articles through database searches and seven additional articles, of which 32 articles were included in the review. Data from the selected articles were extracted, and the findings were synthesized. Results: Based on the 32 articles in the review, we identified several themes, including philosophical underpinnings of fairness, IF metrics, mitigation methods for achieving IF, implications of achieving IF on group fairness and vice versa, and applications of IF in healthcare. Discussion: We find that research of IF is still in their early stages, particularly in healthcare, as evidenced by the limited number of relevant articles published between 2013 and 2024. While healthcare applications of IF remain sparse, growth has been steady in number of publications since 2012. The limitations of group fairness further emphasize the need for alternative approaches like IF. However, IF itself is not without challenges, including subjective definitions of similarity and potential bias encoding from data-driven methods. These findings, coupled with the limitations of the review process, underscore the need for more comprehensive research on the evolution of IF metrics and definitions to advance this promising field. Conclusion: While significant work has been done on algorithmic IF in recent years, the definition, use, and study of IF remain in their infancy, especially in healthcare. Future research is needed to comprehensively apply and evaluate IF in healthcare.

Indexed as

algorithmic fairnesshealthcarehealth disparitiesindividual fairness

Identifiers

PMID39737346
PMCPMC11684587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.