Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42256446›Full record

ReviewJAMIA open2026

Strategies for mitigating artificial intelligence bias in healthcare: a systematic review.

Kais Gadhoumi, Rashaud Senior, Sijia Wei, Leila Ledbetter, Michael D Green, Bethany D Bonner, Yvonne Mosley, Katie Seidler, Kristle Green, Donghwan Lee and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMIA open, 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

13 authors.

Kais GadhoumiDuke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.
Rashaud SeniorAvance Care, Raleigh, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7450-0484
Sijia WeiFeinberg School of Medicine and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.
Leila LedbetterEvidence Synthesis Information Scientist at the Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, 24061, United States.
Michael D GreenDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.
Bethany D BonnerDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.
Yvonne MosleyBelk College of Business, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, 28223, United States.
Katie SeidlerDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.
Kristle GreenFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, United States.
Donghwan LeeDuke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.
Chuan HongDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.
Vincent Guilamo RamosJohns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, 20001, United States.
Michael P CaryDuke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, 27710, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Artificial intelligence is used in healthcare to identify and manage health conditions across diverse patient populations and clinical settings, but biases in algorithms can perpetuate and exacerbate inequalities in health and healthcare delivery. While some research has focused on addressing this critical issue, there is a lack of comprehensive information on the types of strategies employed for bias mitigation in the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare and the effectiveness of these strategies. The objective of this review was to address this lack of information by identifying, categorizing, and describing the effectiveness of bias reduction strategies and fairness metrics in healthcare algorithms. Materials and Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, this study categorizes and evaluates the effectiveness of bias reduction strategies and fairness metrics identified in a previous scoping review. Results: The review included 35 studies. The findings are related to the stages of the algorithm lifecycle and are aligned with the authors' institutional governance structure for algorithm development, silent evaluation, effectiveness evaluation, and deployment. The majority (60%) of the identified strategies were implemented during the algorithm development and silent evaluation stages, and all studies utilized group fairness metrics for performance measurement. Most studies (85%) reported effective bias reduction, while only a few reported ineffectiveness (8%) or no effect (5%). Conclusion: There is a significant opportunity for model developers and end users to identify and reduce bias, particularly during model design. When evaluating strategy effectiveness, efforts should be measured using evidenced-based fairness metrics-such as group-based metrics-to ensure effectiveness and interpretability.

Indexed as

algorithmsartificial intelligencedelivery of healthcaresocioeconomic factors

Identifiers

PMID42256446
PMCPMC13234951

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.