ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Advancing health equity in proactive health management: from data underrepresentation and algorithmic bias to a closed-loop governance framework.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proactive health management (PHM) relies on wearable devices, mobile health applications, and artificial intelligence (AI) to continuously monitor the health status of individuals, thus supporting risk stratification and early intervention. The effectiveness of such techniques fundamentally depends on whether training data adequately represents the target population. Structural data gaps in patient-generated health data (PGHD), driven by social determinants of health (SDoH) and the digital divide, result in the systematic underrepresentation of high-risk groups in training data. This underrepresentation cascades through model development and deployment, leading to prediction bias, risk omission in vulnerable populations, and misallocation of health resources. To synthesize current evidence on this topic, we conducted a narrative review searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for peer-reviewed literature published between January 2015 and February 2026, using terms related to proactive health management, artificial intelligence, algorithmic bias, and health equity. A total of 108 studies meeting predefined inclusion criteria were included and synthesized thematically. This review analyzes the mechanisms driving insufficient data representativeness in PHM and traces how prediction bias accumulates across model development and deployment, resulting in health inequities. We identify that equity risk in PHM stems from the interplay of three factors: social inequality structures, data collection mechanisms, and predictive target design. Because these drivers operate across the entire PHM lifecycle, addressing equity requires integrated, system-wide governance rather than isolated technical adjustments. This paper therefore proposes a comprehensive closed-loop governance framework encompassing targeted data collection, fairness constraint mechanisms, pre-deployment subgroup audits, and post-deployment continuous monitoring. By transforming fairness from a technical condition into a core systemic principle, this framework aims to ensure health equity throughout the PHM lifecycle.
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.