ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Auditing fairness in clinical AI systems using provenance-based simulation: a comparative and regulatory perspective.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.