Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42293294›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical legal studies2026

An Assessment of Racial Disparities in Pretrial Decision-Making Using Misclassification Models.

Kimberly A Hochstedler Webb, Sarah A Riley, Martin T Wells

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical legal studies, 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

3 authors.

Kimberly A Hochstedler WebbDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Sarah A RileyVera Institute of Justice, Incarceration and Inequality Project, New York, New York, USA.
Martin T WellsDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Funding

Transmission Aerobiology of M. tuberculosis: Genes and Metabolic Pathways That Sustain Mtb Across an Evolutionary BottleneckP01AI159402 · NIAID · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI NATHAN, CARL FRANCIS, RHEE, KYU Y · 2021 to 2025
$15.8M
Artificial Intelligence and Precision Nutrition Training ProgramT32HD113301 · NICHD · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI David Carl Erickson, Deborah Estrin · 2023 to 2026
$1.1M
NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI159402NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD113301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pretrial risk assessment tools are used in jurisdictions across the country to assess the likelihood of "pretrial failure," the event where defendants either fail to appear (FTA) for court or reoffend. Judicial officers, in turn, use these assessments to determine whether to release or detain defendants during trial. While algorithmic risk assessment tools were designed to predict pretrial failure with greater accuracy relative to judges, there is still concern that both risk assessment recommendations and pretrial decisions are biased against minority groups. We use the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI) as a case study to investigate the accuracy and fairness of risk assessment algorithms and judicial decisions. In this paper, we develop methods to investigate the association between risk factors and pretrial failure, while simultaneously estimating misclassification rates of pretrial risk assessments and of judicial decisions as a function of defendant race. This approach adds to a growing literature that makes use of outcome misclassification methods to answer questions about fairness in pretrial decision-making. We give a detailed simulation study for our proposed methodology and apply these methods to data from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. We estimate that the VPRAI algorithm has near-perfect specificity, but its sensitivity differs by defendant race. Judicial decisions also display evidence of bias; we estimate wrongful detention rates of 39.7% and 51.4% among white and Black defendants, respectively.

Indexed as

algorithmic biasbias correctionnoisy labelsracial disparitiesrisk assessmentsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID42293294
PMCPMC13256308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.