ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Introducing the Team Card: Enhancing governance for medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in the age of complexity.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper introduces the Team Card (TC) as a protocol to address harmful biases in the development of clinical artificial intelligence (AI) systems by emphasizing the often-overlooked role of researchers' positionality. While harmful bias in medical AI, particularly in Clinical Decision Support (CDS) tools, is frequently attributed to issues of data quality, this limited framing neglects how researchers' worldviews-shaped by their training, backgrounds, and experiences-can influence AI design and deployment. These unexamined subjectivities can create epistemic limitations, amplifying biases and increasing the risk of inequitable applications in clinical settings. The TC emphasizes reflexivity-critical self-reflection-as an ethical strategy to identify and address biases stemming from the subjectivity of research teams. By systematically documenting team composition, positionality, and the steps taken to monitor and address unconscious bias, TCs establish a framework for assessing how diversity within teams impacts AI development. Studies across business, science, and organizational contexts demonstrate that diversity improves outcomes, including innovation, decision-making quality, and overall performance. However, epistemic diversity-diverse ways of thinking and problem-solving-must be actively cultivated through intentional, collaborative processes to mitigate bias effectively. By embedding epistemic diversity into research practices, TCs may enhance model performance, improve fairness and offer an empirical basis for evaluating how diversity influences bias mitigation efforts over time. This represents a critical step toward developing inclusive, ethical, and effective AI systems in clinical care. A publicly available prototype presenting our TC is accessible at https://www.teamcard.io/team/demo.
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.