ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Reassessing demographic bias in face attribute classification: a statistically grounded multi-model evaluation on FairFace and UTKFace.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
Face analysis systems are widely used in security, authentication, and public-sector applications; however, demographic bias and the statistical reliability of reported performance remain key concerns. Many studies rely on aggregate accuracy without quantifying subgroup disparities or uncertainty, potentially overstating model fairness. This study presents a statistically grounded evaluation of demographic bias in face attribute classification across three representative architectures, ResNet50, MobileNetV3, and a vision transformer (DeiT), using the FairFace and UTKFace datasets. Subgroup analysis is conducted across race and gender, incorporating disparity indices, bootstrap confidence intervals, and inferential statistical testing with effect size analysis. The evaluation uses an embedding-based nearest-neighbor approach to examine representation-level behavior consistently across models. Results show that race-based disparities are substantially larger than gender-based disparities across both datasets. On FairFace, race disparity gaps range from 0.1124 to 0.1266, while on UTKFace they increase significantly to 0.4726-0.4944, with large effect sizes (Cohen's
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.