ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Algorithmic fairness in AI-based fitness advice: evaluating socioeconomic bias in county-contextualized physical activity prescriptions.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) can significantly broaden access to physical-activity guidance. However, advice that implicitly assumes available financial resources, reliable transportation, specialized equipment, or local facilities can be difficult for individuals in resource-constrained environments to act upon. We evaluated whether such resource assumptions systematically vary across socioeconomic settings when underlying health needs remain fixed. Methods: We developed a county-aware, matched-counterfactual auditing framework integrating U.S. public health and socioeconomic data, synthetic patient profiles, and structured LLM outputs. To evaluate resource burden, we constructed a transparent access-cost proxy that renders each coded component directly inspectable. We evaluated accessibility-aware prompting, output reranking, alternative weighting schemes, and a bounded three-model comparative panel (including DeepSeek) to audit and mitigate socioeconomically driven bias. Results: In the full DeepSeek model panel, accessibility-aware prompting reduced the access-cost proxy gap between high- and low-socioeconomic status (SES) counties from 0.306 to 0.139. Subsequent output reranking maintained this narrowed gap while simultaneously improving coarse alignment with physical-activity volume and intensity guidelines. Sensitivity analyses using alternative weighting schemes preserved the overall comparative ordering, while the three-model comparison demonstrated model-specific variations in resource-assumption responses. Discussion: This study establishes a reproducible framework that connects equity-oriented health-recommender principles to traceable output auditing and targeted bias mitigation. By offering a transparent approach to evaluating implicit resource assumptions, this work provides researchers and practitioners with an actionable foundation for downstream expert, user, and implementation validation.
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.