Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42234645›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Algorithmic bias in HR recruitment systems: A qualitative analysis of managerial risk and sociological implications.

Baijia Song

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

Baijia SongShandong Vocational and Technical University of International Studies‌, Rizhao, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9069-8514

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Algorithmic hiring systems have rapidly proliferated across industries, promising improved efficiency, objectivity, and scalability in recruitment processes. However, growing empirical evidence reveals a gap between these expected benefits and actual outcomes, as many systems inadvertently reproduce or amplify historical inequalities embedded in training data. The main aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a rigorous, multi-layered framework capable of identifying, interpreting, and mitigating bias throughout the full lifecycle of algorithmic hiring systems, ensuring both immediate decision fairness and long-term career equity. To achieve this aim, the Multi-Layer Bias Analysis and Mitigation System (ML-BAMS) is introduced as a comprehensive approach to detecting and mitigating bias in HR recruitment systems. The framework integrates modules for bias decomposition and data diagnostics, recruitment-aware fairness evaluation across multi-stage pipelines, interpretability of opaque models through influence mapping, fairness-preserving representation learning, and longitudinal simulation of career mobility outcomes. Using synthetic hiring datasets, the proposed framework demonstrates substantial reductions in demographic disparities across key fairness metrics, including improvements in demographic parity (32.4%), equal opportunity (28.7%), equalized odds (25.9%), and treatment equality (19.2%), while maintaining competitive predictive accuracy (ΔAccuracy: + 0.024). These findings highlight the importance of integrated sociotechnical approaches that address bias transmission, enhance transparency, and account for long-term impacts. The ML-BAMS framework provides a practical and modular toolset for implementing responsible AI in recruitment, balancing operational performance with ethical considerations of fairness and social equity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPersonnel SelectionBiasCareer MobilityHumans

Identifiers

PMID42234645
PMCPMC13232804

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.