Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42038538›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Auditing fairness in clinical AI systems using provenance-based simulation: a comparative and regulatory perspective.

Fidelis Alu, Sunkanmi Oluwadare, Nnennaya Ngwanma Halliday, Uchenna Emmanuel Agwunobi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Fidelis AluSchool of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Sunkanmi OluwadareSchool of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Nnennaya Ngwanma HallidaySchool of Information Technology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Uchenna Emmanuel AgwunobiUniversity of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in clinical decision support has encountered obstacles due to algorithmic bias and lack of transparency. To address this, we developed an auditing framework using detailed data provenance to audit fairness. Methods: We simulated audits on a synthetic patient dataset ( Results: Logistic regression achieved 75.2 ± 1.0% accuracy (AUC = 0.806 ± 0.030) and random forest achieved 70.1 ± 1.4% accuracy (AUC = 0.745 ± 0.020). Provenance logs successfully detected gender biases in both models. Logistic regression exhibited statistically significant bias (EOD = +0.256, Discussion: Despite lower accuracy, random forest showed 57% less bias than logistic regression, challenging assumptions that interpretability guarantees fairness. We introduce a standardized AI Fairness Provenance Record documenting data origin, model choices, and bias metrics, enabling auditors to trace decisions to their source. This framework maps to FDA transparency guidelines and ONC HTI-1 requirements, demonstrating how provenance-based auditing supports regulatory compliance and provides a pathway toward more responsible and equitable AI in clinical settings.

Indexed as

algorithmic fairnessbias detectionclinical AIexplainable AImodel governanceprovenance auditability

Identifiers

PMID42038538
PMCPMC13106396

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.