Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40444183›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025

Governance for anti-racist AI in healthcare: integrating racism-related stress in psychiatric algorithms for Black Americans.

Christopher T Fields, Carmen Black, Jannat K Thind, Oluwole Jegede, Damla Aksen, Matthew Rosenblatt, Shervin Assari, Chyrell Bellamy, Elijah Anderson, Avram Holmes and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors.

Christopher T FieldsProgram for Recovery and Community Health, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Carmen BlackInstitute of Living at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, United States.
Jannat K ThindProgram for Recovery and Community Health, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Oluwole JegedeDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Damla AksenDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Matthew RosenblattMagnetic Resonance Research Center, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Shervin AssariDepartment of Family Medicine, Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Chyrell BellamyProgram for Recovery and Community Health, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Elijah AndersonDepartment of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Avram HolmesDepartment of Psychiatry, Brain Health Institute, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, United States.
Dustin ScheinostMagnetic Resonance Research Center, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the world is aware of America's history of enslavement, the ongoing impact of anti-Black racism in the United States remains underemphasized in health intervention modeling. This Perspective argues that algorithmic bias-manifested in the worsened performance of clinical algorithms for Black vs. white patients-is significantly driven by the failure to model the cumulative impacts of racism-related stress, particularly racial heteroscedasticity. Racial heteroscedasticity refers to the unequal variance in health outcomes and algorithmic predictions across racial groups, driven by differential exposure to racism-related stress. This may be particularly salient for Black Americans, where anti-Black bias has wide-ranging impacts that interact with differing backgrounds of generational trauma, socioeconomic status, and other social factors, promoting unaccounted for sources of variance that are not easily captured with a blanket "race" factor. Not accounting for these factors deteriorates performance for these clinical algorithms for all Black patients. We outline key principles for anti-racist AI governance in healthcare, including: (1) mandating the inclusion of Black researchers and community members in AI development; (2) implementing rigorous audits to assess anti-Black bias; (3) requiring transparency in how algorithms process race-related data; and (4) establishing accountability measures that prioritize equitable outcomes for Black patients. By integrating these principles, AI can be developed to produce more equitable and culturally responsive healthcare interventions. This anti-racist approach challenges policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and AI developers to fundamentally rethink how AI is created, used, and regulated in healthcare, with profound implications for health policy, clinical practice, and patient outcomes across all medical domains.

Indexed as

algorithmic biasanti-racist AIclinical algorithmscommunity-based participatory researchracism-related stress

Identifiers

PMID40444183
PMCPMC12119476

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.