Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40191161›Full record

ArticleAI & society2025

On prediction-modelers and decision-makers: why fairness requires more than a fair prediction model.

Teresa Scantamburlo, Joachim Baumann, Christoph Heitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI & society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. FanFAIR: sensitive data sets semi-automatic fairness assessment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
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

3 authors.

Teresa Scantamburlo *Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, European Centre for Living Technology, Ca' Foscari University, Via Torino 155, Room Z.B17, Building Z, 30172 Venezia-Mestre, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3769-8874
Joachim Baumann *Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2019-4829
Christoph Heitz *School of Engineering, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Technikumstrasse 81, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6683-4150

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An implicit ambiguity in the field of prediction-based decision-making concerns the relation between the concepts of prediction and decision. Much of the literature in the field tends to blur the boundaries between the two concepts and often simply refers to 'fair prediction'. In this paper, we point out that a differentiation of these concepts is helpful when trying to implement algorithmic fairness. Even if fairness properties are related to the features of the used prediction model, what is more properly called 'fair' or 'unfair' is a decision system, not a prediction model. This is because fairness is about the consequences on human lives, created by a decision, not by a prediction. In this paper, we clarify the distinction between the concepts of prediction and decision and show the different ways in which these two elements influence the final fairness properties of a prediction-based decision system. As well as discussing this relationship both from a conceptual and a practical point of view, we propose a framework that enables a better understanding and reasoning of the conceptual logic of creating fairness in prediction-based decision-making. In our framework, we specify different roles, namely the 'prediction-modeler' and the 'decision-maker,' and the information required from each of them for being able to implement fairness of the system. Our framework allows for deriving distinct responsibilities for both roles and discussing some insights related to ethical and legal requirements. Our contribution is twofold. First, we offer a new perspective shifting the focus from an abstract concept of algorithmic fairness to the concrete context-dependent nature of algorithmic decision-making, where different actors exist, can have different goals, and may act independently. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework that can help structure prediction-based decision problems with respect to fairness issues, identify responsibilities, and implement fairness governance mechanisms in real-world scenarios.

Indexed as

Algorithmic fairnessDecision makerHuman-in-the-loopPrediction-based decision systemsPrediction modelerResponsibility

Identifiers

PMID40191161
PMCPMC11968481

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.