ArticleBMC medicine2025
Navigating fairness aspects of clinical prediction models.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Bias and Fairness Across the Healthcare AI Lifecycle: A Clinician-Oriented Review.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Explainable AI for mental health emergency returns: integrating large language models with predictive modeling.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Fair and robust early readmission risk prediction from electronic health records via diffusion-based data augmentation and causal-invariant representation learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction model for surgical site infections after major abdominal surgery.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Article
- TRIAGE: Trustworthy Reporting and Assessment for Clinical Gain and Effectiveness of AI Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nurses as guardians of time: the hidden clinical value of continuous care in geriatrics.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Uncloaking the black-box: the need for explainable artificial intelligence in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases applications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- A pipeline for enabling path-specific causal fairness in observational health data.Proceedings of the ... Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · 2026Article
- From microscopy to antimicrobial decisions: a clinically grounded roadmap for critical care infectious diseases.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Leveraging a machine learning model to predict hospital readmission risk: integrating clinical and social determinants of health data.Frontiers in public health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlgorithms are increasingly used in healthcare, yet most algorithms lack thorough evaluation and impact assessment across diverse populations. This absence of comprehensive scrutiny introduces a significant risk of inequitable clinical outcomes, particularly between different demographic and socioeconomic groups. MAIN BODY: Societal biases-rooted in structural inequalities and systemic discrimination-often shape the data used to develop these algorithms. When such biases become embedded into predictive models, algorithms frequently favor privileged populations, further deepening existing inequalities. Without proactive efforts to identify and mitigate these biases, algorithms risk disproportionately harming already marginalized groups, widening the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged patients. Various statistical metrics are available to assess algorithmic fairness, each addressing different dimensions of disparity in predictive performance across population groups. However, understanding and applying these fairness metrics in real-world healthcare settings remains limited. Transparency in both the development and communication of algorithms is essential to building a more equitable healthcare system. Openly addressing fairness concerns fosters trust and accountability, ensuring that fairness considerations become an integral part of algorithm design and implementation rather than an afterthought. Using a participatory approach involving three clinicians and three patients with lived experience of type 2 diabetes, we developed a set of guiding questions to help healthcare professionals assess algorithms critically, challenge existing practices, and stimulate discussions.
conclusionsWe aim to direct healthcare professionals on navigating the complexities of bias in healthcare algorithms by encouraging critical thinking about biases present in society, data, algorithms, and healthcare systems.
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.