ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Mitigating bias in AI mortality predictions for minority populations: a transfer learning approach.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for predicting and preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes addressing bias and clinical translation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence approaches to predicting treatment non-adherence in chronic diseases: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Integration of artificial intelligence and wearable technology in the management of diabetes and prediabetes.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in pharmacovigilance: a narrative review and practical experience with an expert-defined Bayesian network tool.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Review
- Towards machine learning fairness in classifying multicategory causes of deaths in colorectal or lung cancer patients.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Digital and Artificial Intelligence-based Pathology: Not for Every Laboratory - A Mini-review on the Benefits and Pitfalls of Its Implementation.Journal of clinical and translational pathology · 2025Article
- Overcoming the Black Box Challenge: Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Oncology.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the crucial role of artificial intelligence (AI) in predicting mortality and guiding healthcare decisions. However, AI models may perpetuate or exacerbate existing health disparities due to demographic biases, particularly affecting racial and ethnic minorities. The objective of this study is to investigate the demographic biases in AI models predicting COVID-19 mortality and to assess the effectiveness of transfer learning in improving model fairness across diverse demographic groups.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used a population-based dataset of COVID-19 cases from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), spanning the years 2020-2024. The study analyzed AI model performance across different racial and ethnic groups and employed transfer learning techniques to improve model fairness by adapting pre-trained models to the specific demographic and clinical characteristics of the population.
resultsDecision Tree (DT) and Random Forest (RF) models consistently showed improvements in accuracy, precision, and ROC-AUC scores for Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian populations. The most significant precision improvement was observed in the DT model for Hispanic/Latino individuals, which increased from 0.3805 to 0.5265. The precision for Asians or Pacific Islanders in the DT model increased from 0.4727 to 0.6071, and for Non-Hispanic Blacks, it rose from 0.5492 to 0.6657. Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM) produced mixed results, showing accuracy and precision improvements for Non-Hispanic Black and Asian groups, but declines for the Hispanic/Latino and American Indian groups, with the most significant decline in precision, which dropped from 0.4612 to 0.2406 in the American Indian group. Logistic Regression (LR) demonstrated minimal changes across all metrics and groups. For the Non-Hispanic American Indian group, most models showed limited benefits, with several performance metrics either remaining stable or declining.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of AI in predicting COVID-19 mortality while also underscoring the critical need to address demographic biases. The application of transfer learning significantly improved the predictive performance of models across various racial and ethnic groups, suggesting these techniques are effective in mitigating biases and promoting fairness in AI 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.