ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Representation of Demographics in Otolaryngology by Artificial Intelligence Text-to-Image Platforms.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) text-to-image generators have a propensity to reflect stereotypes. This study investigates the perception of race and gender of AI-generated portraits of otolaryngologists, evaluating their accuracy against workforce demographics and whether they amplify existing social biases. Methods: Three text-to-image platforms (DALL-E3, Runway, Midjourney) were prompted to generate portrait photos of otolaryngologists based on 29 categories, including personality traits, fellowship, and academic rank. 580 portrait photos were made per platform. Two reviewers characterized the gender and race of the 1740 portraits. Statistical analysis compared the demographics of AI outputs to existing demographic information. Results: Of the 1740 AI-generated otolaryngologists generated, 88% of images were labeled as White, 4% Black, 6% Asian, 2% Indeterminate/Other race, 88% male, and 12% female. Across academic rank, the representation of White individuals was 97% (department chairs), 90% (program directors), 93% (professors), and 78% (residents). Male representation ranged from 90% (department chairs), 75% (program directors), 100% (professors), and 87% (residents). Runway produced more images of male (89% vs. 88% vs. 85%, Conclusion: Text-to-image platforms demonstrated racial and gender biases, with notable differences compared to actual demographics. These platforms often underrepresented females and racial minority groups and overrepresented White males. These disparities underscore the need for the awareness of biases in AI, especially as these tools become more integrated into patient-facing platforms. Left unchecked, these biases risk marginalizing minority populations and reinforcing societal stereotypes. Level of Evidence: 4.
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.