Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40673267›Full record

ReviewClinical epidemiology2025

Clinical Algorithms and the Legacy of Race-Based Correction: Historical Errors, Contemporary Revisions and Equity-Oriented Methodologies for Epidemiologists.

Laura J Horsfall, Paulina Bondaronek, Julia Ive, Shoba Poduval

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Laura J HorsfallInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0868-5660
Paulina BondaronekInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Julia IveInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3931-3392
Shoba PoduvalInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical algorithms are widely used tools for predicting, diagnosing, and managing diseases. However, race correction in these algorithms has faced increasing scrutiny for potentially perpetuating health disparities and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. This narrative review synthesizes historical, clinical, and methodological literature to examine the origins and consequences of race correction in clinical algorithms. We focus primarily on developments in the United States and the United Kingdom, where many race-based algorithms originated. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources, we discuss the persistence of race-based adjustments, the implications of their removal, and emerging strategies for bias mitigation and fairness in algorithm development. The practice began in the mid-19th century with the spirometer, which measured lung capacity and was used to reinforce racial hierarchies by characterizing lower lung capacity for Black people. Despite critiques that these differences reflect environmental exposure rather than inherited traits, the belief in race-based biological differences in lung capacity and other physiological functions, including cardiac, renal, and obstetric processes, persists in contemporary clinical algorithms. Concerns about race correction compounding health inequities have led many medical organizations to re-evaluate their algorithms, with some removing race entirely. Transitioning to race-neutral equations in areas like pulmonary function testing and obstetrics has shown promise in enhancing fairness without compromising accuracy. However, the impact of these changes varies across clinical contexts, highlighting the need for careful bias identification and mitigation. Future efforts should focus on incorporating diverse data sources, capturing true social and biological health determinants, implementing bias detection and fairness strategies, ensuring transparent reporting, and engaging with diverse communities. Educating students and trainees on race as a sociopolitical construct is also important for raising awareness and achieving health equity. Moving forward, regular monitoring, evaluation, and refinement of approaches in real-world settings are needed for clinical algorithms serve all patients equitably and effectively.

Indexed as

algorithmic biasalgorithmic fairnessbias detectionbias mitigationclinical algorithmshealth disparitieslung functionrace correctionspirometer

Identifiers

PMID40673267
PMCPMC12266067

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.