ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
FanFAIR: sensitive data sets semi-automatic fairness assessment.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Data fairness-the new social challenge of the data economy: what shapes social media users' perception of data fairness?Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch has shown how data sets convey social bias in Artificial Intelligence systems, especially those based on machine learning. A biased data set is not representative of reality and might contribute to perpetuate societal biases within the model. To tackle this problem, it is important to understand how to avoid biases, errors, and unethical practices while creating the data sets. In order to provide guidance for the use of data sets in contexts of critical decision-making, such as health decisions, we identified six fundamental data set features (balance, numerosity, unevenness, compliance, quality, incompleteness) that could affect model fairness. These features were the foundation for the FanFAIR framework.
resultsWe extended the FanFAIR framework for the semi-automated evaluation of fairness in data sets, by combining statistical information on data with qualitative features. In particular, we present an improved version of FanFAIR which introduces novel outlier detection capabilities working in multivariate fashion, using two state-of-the-art methods: the Empirical Cumulative-distribution Outlier Detection (ECOD) and Isolation Forest. We also introduce a novel metric for data set balance, based on an entropy measure.
conclusionWe addressed the issue of how much (un)fairness can be included in a data set used for machine learning research, focusing on classification issues. We developed a rule-based approach based on fuzzy logic that combines these characteristics into a single score and enables a semi-automatic evaluation of a data set in algorithmic fairness research. Our tool produces a detailed visual report about the fairness of the data set. We show the effectiveness of FanFAIR by applying the method on two open data sets.
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.