ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Equity at the point of care: auditing AI-supported resource allocation in obstetric emergencies.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Equity in artificial intelligence-supported obstetric emergency care should be assessed as a service outcome, not as a model property, because preventable harm is mediated through operational delay, escalation, and resource contention. This perspective synthesizes implementation-relevant literature and quality and safety principles to propose a practical approach for translating equity from an abstract aspiration into auditable operations. We argue for using "avoidable delay" as a shared denominator across emergencies (such as postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive crises, and obstetric sepsis) and for evaluating equity across the full chain from risk detection to resource delivery. We propose a minimum fairness audit set that can be captured largely from routine timestamps and logs: consistency of triggering across comparable presentations; timeliness of first response and definitive treatment; readiness of critical resources (blood products at bedside, operating room access and anesthesia start, and monitored-bed availability); completion of escalation and transfer steps; and structured documentation of overrides, missing data, and exception reasons. We further outline governance requirements-clear cross-service accountability, change control with re-audit after threshold or workflow modifications, and patient-facing transparency-so that equity is treated as an accountable, measured, and managed risk item within routine quality improvement rather than a one-time publication metric. In this perspective, "AI-supported" is used as a pragmatic umbrella to encompass deployed algorithmic decision-support systems at the point of care, including static rules-based early warning triggers, machine-learning risk scores, and operational routing/queuing engines; the Minimum Fairness Audit Set (MFAS) audits the service-chain consequences of any such trigger when it is coupled to an executable pathway with auditable timestamps.
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.