ArticleComplex & intelligent systems2026
Trustworthy AI for radar vital signs: detecting and mitigating gender bias in healthcare.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.