Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40079820›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Emerging algorithmic bias: fairness drift as the next dimension of model maintenance and sustainability.

Sharon E Davis, Chad Dorn, Daniel J Park, Michael E Matheny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Explainability in context: calibrating appropriate trust and reliance in artificial intelligence.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Gaps in artificial intelligence research for rural health in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Sharon E DavisDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0792-8867
Chad DornDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.
Daniel J ParkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.
Michael E MathenyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37203, United States.

Funding

Overall: Eunice Kennedy Shriver Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center at VanderbiltP50HD103537 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Jeffrey L Neul · 2020 to 2026
$10.3M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD103537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile performance drift of clinical prediction models is well-documented, the potential for algorithmic biases to emerge post-deployment has had limited characterization. A better understanding of how temporal model performance may shift across subpopulations is required to incorporate fairness drift into model maintenance strategies. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe explore fairness drift in a national population over 11 years, with and without model maintenance aimed at sustaining population-level performance. We trained random forest models predicting 30-day post-surgical readmission, mortality, and pneumonia using 2013 data from US Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. We evaluated performance quarterly from 2014 to 2023 by self-reported race and sex. We estimated discrimination, calibration, and accuracy, and operationalized fairness using metric parity measured as the gap between disadvantaged and advantaged groups.

resultsOur cohort included 1 739 666 surgical cases. We observed fairness drift in both the original and temporally updated models. Model updating had a larger impact on overall performance than fairness gaps. During periods of stable fairness, updating models at the population level increased, decreased, or did not impact fairness gaps. During periods of fairness drift, updating models restored fairness in some cases and exacerbated fairness gaps in others. DISCUSSION: This exploratory study highlights that algorithmic fairness cannot be assured through one-time assessments during model development. Temporal changes in fairness may take multiple forms and interact with model updating strategies in unanticipated ways.

conclusionEquitable and sustainable clinical artificial intelligence deployments will require novel methods to monitor algorithmic fairness, detect emerging bias, and adopt model updates that promote fairness.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, StatisticalAgedBiasFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionUnited Statesalgorithmic fairnessdataset shiftmodel updatingperformance driftpredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID40079820
PMCPMC12012346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.