ArticlePloS one2026
Trustworthy AI for medical decisions: Adversarially robust and fair machine learning prediction for Parkinson's disease.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor and non-motor symptoms, including tremor, rigidity, and postural instability. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promise for the diagnosis of PD; however, many existing approaches do not explicitly address fairness and robustness. As a result, these models can lead to biased outcomes across demographic groups and vulnerability to adversarial attacks. In this study, we used the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort, which includes clinical and demographic information from 1,084 participants spanning diverse age, sex, and racial groups. Our study addresses the key challenge of developing robust and equitable ML models to diagnose the progression of PD. We evaluated the performance of two fairness-optimized classifiers, namely, Random Forest (RF) and Decision Tree (DT). To evaluate model vulnerability, we applied adversarial techniques, specifically label leakage and data poisoning attacks, which simulate intentional or erroneous data alterations that can amplify biases and degrade accuracy. These adversarial manipulations substantially degraded model performance; specifically, DT accuracy declined by more than 10% between sensitive groups. The accuracy of the RF model decreased by 20%. Moreover, under attack, fairness metrics such as Statistical Parity Difference (SPD), which looks at differences in the chances of getting a positive prediction across demographic groups, and Equal Opportunity Difference (EOD) for differences in true positive rates between groups, both showed a decline. This pattern suggests that adversarial perturbations increased bias and widened performance disparities across demographic groups. Our results demonstrated that adversarial attacks increased the incidence of false positives and false negatives, thereby lowering the accuracy and fairness of the PD diagnostic predictions. These findings underscore the urgent need for robust and fairness-aware defenses in medical AI to mitigate racial, age, and gender disparities and ensure a reliable clinical decision-making process.
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.