Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40041672›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain research2025

Biases in Artificial Intelligence Application in Pain Medicine.

Oranicha Jumreornvong, Aliza M Perez, Brian Malave, Fatimah Mozawalla, Arash Kia, Chinwe A Nwaneshiudu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Oranicha JumreornvongDepartment of Human Performance and Rehabilitation, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Aliza M PerezDepartment of Human Performance and Rehabilitation, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-5679-5707
Brian MalaveDepartment of Human Performance and Rehabilitation, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Fatimah MozawallaDepartment of Human Performance and Rehabilitation, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Arash KiaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Chinwe A NwaneshiuduDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencebiasesgenderpainracesocioeconomic statusstatistical biases

Identifiers

PMID40041672
PMCPMC11878133

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.