ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Biases in Artificial Intelligence Application in Pain Medicine.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathophysiology-guided biomarkers and therapeutics for precision trauma medicine in polytrauma with musculoskeletal injuries.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence, equity, and pediatric neurodevelopmental disorders: A scoping review of clinical practice applications.Pediatric investigation · 2026Review
- Generative AI Ethics Toolkit for Clinical Prioritization in Nursing Education.Nursing ethics · 2026Article
- Paincontrol: identity-preserving pain expression transfer with generative diffusion models.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Ethical considerations of AI integration in palliative care: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Predicting Pharmacological Treatment Response in Migraine Using AI/ML: A Scoping Review of the Evidence and Future Directions.Pharmacotherapy · 2026Review
- Trustworthy AI for radar vital signs: detecting and mitigating gender bias in healthcare.Complex & intelligent systems · 2026Article
- Large language models in clinical trials: applications, technical advances, and future directions.BMC medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced pain management: the NXTSTIM EcoAI platform.Pain management · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to optimize personalized treatment tools and enhance clinical decision-making. However, biases in AI, arising from sex, race, socioeconomic status (SES), and statistical methods, can exacerbate disparities in pain management. This narrative review examines these biases and proposes strategies to mitigate them. A comprehensive literature search across databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO focused on AI applications in pain management and sources of biases. Sex and racial biases often stem from societal stereotypes, underrepresentation of females, overrepresentation of European ancestry patients in clinical trials, and unequal access to treatment caused by systemic racism, leading to inaccurate pain assessments and misrepresentation in clinical data. SES biases reflect differential access to healthcare resources and incomplete data for lower SES individuals, resulting in larger prediction errors. Statistical biases, including sampling and measurement biases, further affect the reliability of AI algorithms. To ensure equitable healthcare delivery, this review recommends employing specific fairness-aware techniques such as reweighting algorithms, adversarial debiasing, and other methods that adjust training data to minimize bias. Additionally, leveraging diverse perspectives-including insights from patients, clinicians, policymakers, and interdisciplinary collaborators-can enhance the development of fair and interpretable AI systems. Continuous monitoring and inclusive collaboration are essential for addressing biases and harnessing AI's potential to improve pain management outcomes across diverse populations.
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.