Cited by 54Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Towards a pragmatist dealing with algorithmic bias in medical machine learning

Open access
Starke, Georg, De Clercq, Eva, Elger, Bernice S.·2021·Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) is on the rise in medicine, promising improved diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic clinical tools. While these technological innovations are bound to transform health care, they also bring new ethical concerns to the forefront. One particularly elusive challenge regards discriminatory algorithmic judgements based on biases inherent in the training data. A common line of reasoning distinguishes between justified differential treatments that mirror true disparities between socially salient groups, and unjustified biases which do not, leading to misdiagnosis and erroneous treatment. In the curation of training data this strategy runs into severe problems though, since distinguishing between the two can be next to impossible. We thus plead for a pragmatist dealing with algorithmic bias in healthcare environments. By recurring to a recent reformulation of William James’s pragmatist understanding of truth, we recommend that, instead of aiming at a supposedly objective truth, outcome-based therapeutic usefulness should serve as the guiding principle for assessing ML applications in medicine.

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 · 10.1007/s11019-021-10008-5

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Algorithmic bias can amplify and exacerbate existing social, cultural, or historical biases, leading to unfair treatment or discrimination against certain individuals or groups.

    “It can amplify and exacerbate existing social, cultural, or historical biases, leading to unfair treatment or discrimination against certain individuals or groups [50-52].”

    From Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in Health Care (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

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

2 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Galison Peter Brockman John Algorists dream of objectivity Possible minds: 25 ways of looking at AI 2019 New York Penguin Press 231 239
  2. Jabbari, Shahin, Matthew Joseph, Michael Kearns, Jamie Morgenstern, and Aaron Roth. 2017. Fairness in reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning: PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Starke, G., De Clercq, E., & Elger, B. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Starke, Georg
Venue
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Published
2021-03-13
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
341-349
ISSN
  • 1386-7423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8633
OpenAlex
W3133622253
Cited by
54
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2
FWCI
12.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universität Basel
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
algorithmic bias, machine learning in medicine, pragmatism, William James, differential treatment, training data, health disparities, misdiagnosis
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Delivery of Health Care, Education, Medical, Humans, Morals, Bias

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