Cited by 44Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIDiversity and Career in Medicine

Equity and Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Care

Open access
Johnson-Mann, Crystal N., Loftus, Tyler J., Bihorac, Azra·2021·JAMA Surgery

Abstract

This Viewpoint endeavors to provide an overview of mechanisms by which artificial intelligence can either propagate or counteract disparities and suggests methods to tilt the balance toward fairness and equity in surgical care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.7208

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI-enabled DHTs can amplify implicit bias and discrimination if trained on data that reflect the health-care disparities experienced by groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or geographic location.

    “Moreover, AI-enabled DHTs can amplify implicit bias and discrimination if trained on data that reflect the health-care disparities experienced by groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or geographic location.126”

    From Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: Advancements, opportunities, and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [126]

    The “Artificial Intelligence can Propagate Disparities” section says algorithms trained on biased data produce biased results, and the Summary says surgical decision-support tools propagate disparities when source data and input features are biased. The paper discusses race, ethnicity, sex, gender, socioeconomic factors, and geography, but the supplied passages do not address sexual orientation; its discussion is also specific to surgical AI rather than AI-enabled digital health technologies generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson-Mann, C. N., Loftus, T. J., & Bihorac, A.
Affiliations
University of Florida Health (US)
Venue
JAMA Surgery
Published
2021-06-01
Volume
156
Issue
6
Pages
509
ISSN
2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3133277548
Cited by
44
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (K23GM140268, P50GM111152, R01GM110240)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
Keywords
artificial intelligence, health equity, health disparities, surgical care, algorithmic fairness, algorithmic bias
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Bias, Implicit, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Patient Selection, Healthcare Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review