ArticleNature communications2026
Mitigating algorithmic unfairness arising from forgetfulness of medical records in clinical artificial intelligence.
Article in Nature communications, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protecting patients' right to be forgotten (RtbF) in the digital era underscores algorithms to delete health records from deployed artificial intelligence (AI) models upon requests, a paradigm also known as machine unlearning. Such forgetfulness, however, will alter AI models' views of subpopulations and could yield discriminating clinical decisions that undermine healthcare equality and endanger patient trust, a common phenomenon confirmed by our thorough investigations. This observation reveals an ethical dilemma in clinical AI: protecting the RtbF of certain patients will compromise the delivery of equitable decisions and, thus, is against the AI fairness principle, necessitating a safeguarding approach. To this end, we propose a fair unlearning strategy to effectively remove medical records from trained models while mitigating decision biases to improve algorithmic equality. This strategy avoids negative interventions between potentially conflicting objectives by enforcing their gradient orthogonality. We perform extensive evaluations on real-world, multi-hospital datasets of rapid COVID-19 screening, in-hospital mortality and shock predictions. Compared with state-of-the-art approaches, our method can teach models to more effectively forget patient records with better predictive performance while, more importantly, mitigating demographic unfairness across subpopulations of ethnicities and sites (hospitals), accommodating the first generalised solution for the dilemma of RtbF and fairness.
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.