Cited by 1,731Race, Genetics, and SocietyEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 48 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Hidden in Plain Sight — Reconsidering the Use of Race Correction in Clinical Algorithms

Open access
Vyas, Darshali A., Eisenstein, Leo G., Jones, David S.·2020·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Individual subscribers can store articles and searches using a feature on the Journal's website (NEJM.org)called "My Account."Each article and search result links to this feature.Users can create personal folders and move articles into them for convenient retrieval later.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmms2004740

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 48 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 39 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
37 of 37
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Nonwhite women in the United States have higher cesarean-section rates than white women.

    “Nonwhite U.S. women continue to have higher rates of cesarean section than white U.S. women.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Successful vaginal deliveries have health benefits, including fewer surgical complications, faster recovery, and fewer complications in later pregnancies.

    “The health benefits of successful vaginal deliveries are well known, including lower rates of surgical complications, faster recovery time, and fewer complications during subsequent pregnancies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Minority patients routinely have different health outcomes from white patients.

    “Since minority patients routinely have different health outcomes from white patients, race and ethnicity often correlated with the outcome of interest.”
3 of 3

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jones DS, Dorr GM, Pollock A. Symposium: race, pharmaceuticals, and medical technology. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:439-545.
  2. Kanis JA. Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health care level. WHO Scientific Group technical report. Sheffield, United Kingdom: World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases, University of Sheffield, 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,731

Metadata

Authors
Vyas, D. A., Eisenstein, L. G., & Jones, D. S.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2020-08-27
Volume
383
Issue
9
Pages
874-882
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3035885149
Cited by
1,731
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 191 · 2025: 262 · 2024: 295 · 2023: 337 · 2022: 295 · 2021: 267 · 2020: 78
FWCI
144.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
clinical algorithms, racial bias, algorithmic fairness, health disparities, algorithmic discrimination
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Cardiology, Female, Humans, Male, Nephrology, Obstetrics, Urology, Risk Assessment, Racial Groups, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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