Cited by 117Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Advancing health equity with artificial intelligence

Open access
Thomasian, Nicole M., Eickhoff, Carsten, Adashi, Eli Y.·2021·Journal of Public Health Policy

Abstract

Population and public health are in the midst of an artificial intelligence revolution capable of radically altering existing models of care delivery and practice. Just as AI seeks to mirror human cognition through its data-driven analytics, it can also reflect the biases present in our collective conscience. In this Viewpoint, we use past and counterfactual examples to illustrate the sequelae of unmitigated bias in healthcare artificial intelligence. Past examples indicate that if the benefits of emerging AI technologies are to be realized, consensus around the regulation of algorithmic bias at the policy level is needed to ensure their ethical integration into the health system. This paper puts forth regulatory strategies for uprooting bias in healthcare AI that can inform ongoing efforts to establish a framework for federal oversight. We highlight three overarching oversight principles in bias mitigation that maps to each phase of the algorithm life cycle.

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 · 10.1057/s41271-021-00319-5

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Deployed AI models for clinical decisions like the ESM can inappropriately increase triage and trigger unnecessary diagnostic testing and prescriptions, decreasing the quality of clinical care and increasing hospital costs.

    “Deployed AI models for clinical decisions like the ESM can inappropriately increase triage and trigger unnecessary diagnostic testing and prescriptions, decreasing the quality of clinical care and increasing hospital costs [101].”

    From Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [101]

  • Interpretability can detect bias by examining how the features that drive model predictions differ for patients in different subgroups.

    “Interpretability can also detect bias by examining how the features that drive model predictions differ for patients in different subgroups (which may be differentially aligned with best care practices) [101].”

    From Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [101]

  • A model that exhibits predictive parity may not have equalized odds, and which metric is more important to optimize depends on the intended clinical use-case.

    “For example, a model that exhibits predictive parity (no difference in precision across groups) may not have equalized odds (similar sensitivity and specificity across groups), which metric is more important to optimize on depends on the intended clinical use-case [101].”

    From Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [101]

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

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [26]Stiglic G Kocbek P Fijacko N Zitnik M Verbert K Cilar L Interpretability of machine learning-based prediction models in healthcare Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Data Min Knowl Discov 2020 10 5 e1379

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomasian, N. M., Eickhoff, C., & Adashi, E. Y.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Thomasian, Nicole M.
Venue
Journal of Public Health Policy
Published
2021-11-22
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
602-611
ISSN
  • 0197-5897 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-655X
OpenAlex
W3215517669
Cited by
117
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, algorithmic bias, health equity, algorithmic fairness, bias mitigation, AI regulation, algorithmic oversight, ethical AI, federal oversight, health policy
MeSH terms
Health Equity, Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Policy

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