Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42518931›Full record

ArticleComplex & intelligent systems2026

Trustworthy AI for radar vital signs: detecting and mitigating gender bias in healthcare.

Nour Ghadban, Jonathan Cooper, Julien Le Kernec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Complex & intelligent systems, 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.

Nour GhadbanJames Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland UK.ORCID 0009-0002-4112-6286
Jonathan CooperJames Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland UK.
Julien Le KernecJames Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a fundamental component in modern healthcare, particularly in noninvasive monitoring of vital signs using radar-based systems. However, algorithmic fairness concerns, such as gender bias, can undermine trust in these systems. This study investigates the impact of gender representation in training data on the accuracy and fairness of radar-based vital sign estimation. We trained machine-learning models on 60 dataset configurations-male-only, female-only, balanced, male-dominant and female-dominant-each containing 640 radar-derived samples (3200 total). Models trained on female-dominant data achieved the highest classification accuracy (94.5%) and lowest regression error (RMSE = 0.70), whereas male-only datasets performed worst (accuracy = 78.2%, RMSE = 1.80). Disparate impact analysis revealed up to a 16.5% performance advantage for female-skewed training data, and multiple fairness metrics, including disparate impact ratio and statistical parity difference, were employed to quantify bias across subgroups. To address these disparities, we implemented a multilevel mitigation framework integrating TimeGAN-based data augmentation, fairness-aware learning constraints, and threshold adjustment. This approach reduced the bias score from 0.0261 to 0.00005 (

Indexed as

Algorithmic fairnessAlgorithmic gender biasBias detection and mitigationHealthcare artificial intelligenceRadar-based vital sign monitoringTrustworthy AI

Identifiers

PMID42518931
PMCPMC13384070

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.