Cited by 37Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

In medicine, how do we machine learn anything real?

Open access
Ghassemi, Marzyeh, Nsoesie, Elaine Okanyene·2022·Patterns

Abstract

Machine learning has traditionally operated in a space where data and labels are assumed to be anchored in objective truths. Unfortunately, much evidence suggests that the "embodied" data acquired from and about human bodies does not create systems that function as desired. The complexity of health care data can be linked to a long history of discrimination, and research in this space forbids naive applications. To improve health care, machine learning models must strive to recognize, reduce, or remove such biases from the start. We aim to enumerate many examples to demonstrate the depth and breadth of biases that exist and that have been present throughout the history of medicine. We hope that outrage over algorithms automating biases will lead to changes in the underlying practices that generated such data, leading to reduced health disparities.

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 · 10.1016/j.patter.2021.100392

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • These findings identify a probable training data bias that predisposes models to provide confident answers in most scenarios, even when a more cautious response is warranted.

    “These findings reinforce previous research recommendations on mitigating healthcare data biases in machine learning30, identifying a probable training data bias that predisposes models to provide confident answers in most scenarios, even when a more cautious response is warranted.”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Hernan M.A. Robins J.M. Causal Inference 2019 CRC Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghassemi, M., & Nsoesie, E. O.
Affiliations
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Ghassemi, Marzyeh
Venue
Patterns
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
100392
ISSN
2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210508008
Cited by
37
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
algorithmic bias, health data, health disparities, history of medicine, health care discrimination, machine learning bias, health data collection, algorithmic fairness

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