Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107862›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Navigating fairness aspects of clinical prediction models.

Kaustubh Chakradeo, Inchuen Huynh, Sedrah B Balaganeshan, Ole L Dollerup, Hjørdis Gade-Jørgensen, Susanne K Laupstad, Mikkel Malham, Tri-Long Nguyen, Adam Hulman, Tibor V Varga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. A pipeline for enabling path-specific causal fairness in observational health data.Proceedings of the ... Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors.

Kaustubh ChakradeoDepartment of Public Health, Section for Health Data Science and AI, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Inchuen HuynhDepartment of Public Health, Copenhagen Health Complexity Center, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sedrah B BalaganeshanDepartment of Public Health, Section for Health Data Science and AI, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ole L DollerupSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Hjørdis Gade-Jørgensen, Hillerød, Denmark.
Susanne K Laupstad, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mikkel MalhamDepartment of Public Health, Copenhagen Health Complexity Center, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tri-Long NguyenDepartment of Public Health, Copenhagen Health Complexity Center, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Adam HulmanSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Tibor V VargaDepartment of Public Health, Copenhagen Health Complexity Center, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Tibor.Varga@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2383-699X

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF17SA0031230Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF20OC0059309Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF22OC0075284Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF24SA0098829
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Healthcare DisparitiesHumansAlgorithmic fairnessAlgorithmsClinical decision-makingClinical decision rulesDelivery of healthcareFairnessHealth inequitiesHealth personnelPrediction algorithmsRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID41107862
PMCPMC12535043

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.