Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584908›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in big data2025

Bias in AI systems: integrating formal and socio-technical approaches.

Amar Ahmad, Yvonne Vallès, Youssef Idaghdour

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in big data, 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

3 authors.

Amar AhmadPublic Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Yvonne VallèsPublic Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Youssef IdaghdourPublic Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly embedded in high-stakes decision-making across domains such as healthcare, finance, criminal justice, and employment. Evidence has been accumulated showing that these systems can reproduce and amplify structural inequities, leading to ethical, social, and technical concerns. In this review, formal mathematical definitions of bias are integrated with socio-technical perspectives to examine its origins, manifestations, and impacts. Bias is categorized into four interrelated families: historical/representational, selection/measurement, algorithmic/optimization, and feedback/emergent, and its operation is illustrated through case studies in facial recognition, large language models, credit scoring, healthcare, employment, and criminal justice. Current mitigation strategies are critically evaluated, including dataset diversification, fairness-aware modeling, post-deployment auditing, regulatory frameworks, and participatory design. An integrated framework is proposed in which statistical diagnostics are coupled with governance mechanisms to enable bias mitigation across the entire AI lifecycle. By bridging technical precision with sociological insight, guidance is offered for the development of AI systems that are equitable, accountable, and responsive to the needs of diverse populations.

Indexed as

algorithmic biasbias mitigationethical AIfairness in machine learningresponsible AIsocio-technical systems

Identifiers

PMID41584908
PMCPMC12823528

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.