Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42606585›Full record

ReviewJNCI cancer spectrum2026

Challenges in medical algorithmic fairness.

Anand Srinivasan, Durga V Sritharan, Sanjay Aneja, Ilana B Richman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JNCI cancer spectrum, 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

4 authors.

Anand SrinivasanDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-8523-2897
Durga V SritharanDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-6553-209X
Sanjay AnejaDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5681-7528
Ilana B RichmanSection of General Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7438-8907

Funding

Yale Cancer Center 2025 to 2026 Cancer Care Equity Research Pilot Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into oncology for applications including cancer detection, risk stratification, treatment planning, and clinical documentation. Concerningly, growing evidence demonstrates that AI systems can reproduce or amplify existing disparities across patient populations. Although considerable effort has focused on developing computational methods to reduce algorithmic bias, many challenges surrounding fairness extend beyond technical implementation. In this commentary, we examine algorithmic fairness in oncology from technical and normative perspectives. We review common sources of bias throughout the machine-learning pipeline; discuss major statistical definitions of fairness, including demographic parity, calibration, and equalized odds; and highlight the inherent trade-offs among these metrics. We further explore how fairness often conflicts with overall predictive performance, arguing that model selection inevitably reflects ethical judgments rather than purely technical optimization. We discuss the limitations of current bias mitigation strategies and contend that many disparities rooted in historical and structural inequities cannot be resolved through algorithmic interventions alone. Finally, we outline priorities for the responsible development and deployment of clinical AI, including greater transparency in fairness decisions, context-specific evaluation standards, ongoing postdeployment auditing, and stronger regulatory oversight. Achieving equitable AI in oncology will require coordinated efforts among developers, clinicians, regulators, and patients to ensure that these technologies improve outcomes without perpetuating existing inequities.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceMedical OncologyBiasCalibrationHumansMachine LearningNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID42606585
PMCPMC13557619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.