ArticlePloS one2024
Ascertaining provider-level implicit bias in electronic health records with rules-based natural language processing: A pilot study in the case of prostate cancer.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Physician Implicit Racial Bias and Guideline-Concordant Vascular Care.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Enhancing personalized suicide risk prediction for VA patients by integrating discrete natural language processing models.Translational psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeImplicit, unconscious biases in medicine are personal attitudes about race, ethnicity, gender, and other characteristics that may lead to discriminatory patterns of care. However, there is no consensus on whether implicit bias represents a true predictor of differential care given an absence of real-world studies. We conducted the first real-world pilot study of provider implicit bias by evaluating treatment parity in prostate cancer using unstructured data-the most common way providers document granular details of the patient encounter. METHODS AND
findingsPatients ≥18 years with a diagnosis of very-low to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer followed by 3 urologic oncologists from 2010 through 2021. The race Implicit Association Test was administered to all providers. Natural language processing screened human annotation using validated regex ontologies evaluated each provider's care on four prostate cancer quality indicators: (1) active surveillance utilization; (2) molecular biomarker discussion; (3) urinary function evaluation; and (4) sexual function evaluation. The chi-squared test and phi coefficient were utilized to respectively measure the statistical significance and the strength of association between race and four quality indicators. 1,094 patients were included. While Providers A and B demonstrated no preference on the race Implicit Association Test, Provider C showed preference for White patients. Provider C recommended active surveillance (p<0.01, φ = 0.175) and considered biomarkers (p = 0.047, φ = 0.127) more often in White men than expected, suggestive of treatment imparity. Provider A considered biomarkers (p<0.01, φ = 0.179) more often in White men than expected. Provider B demonstrated treatment parity in all evaluated quality indicators (p>0.05).
conclusionsIn this pilot study, providers' practice patterns were associated with both patient race and implicit racial preferences in prostate cancer. Alerting providers of existing implicit bias may restore parity, however future assessments are needed to validate this concept.
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.