The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advancing health equity with artificial intelligence
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization
Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.74 · Cited by 24,513
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555
Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax2342 · Cited by 7,137 · cited 6×
“Failure to account for race in contexts where known disparities are relevant to the algorithm’s intended use case has been repeatedly shown to entrench bias [3, 21, 22].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialA guide to deep learning in healthcare
Esteva, A., Robicquet, A., Ramsundar, B., Kuleshov, V., DePristo, M., Chou, K., Cui, C., Corrado, G., Thrun, S., & Dean, J. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z · Cited by 5,312
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255 · Cited by 3,501
Hidden in Plain Sight — Reconsidering the Use of Race Correction in Clinical Algorithms
Vyas, D. A., Eisenstein, L. G., & Jones, D. S. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmms2004740 · Cited by 1,731
Sheller, M. J., Edwards, B., Reina, G. A., Martin, J., Pati, S., Kotrotsou, A., Milchenko, M., Xu, W., Marcus, D., Colen, R. R., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69250-1 · Cited by 1,646 · cited 1×
“Finally, collaborative training techniques such as federated learning and cyclic weight transfer are just two examples of options to boost data availability, as they can allow for model training across multiple institutions without transfer of patient data (See Box 1) [18, 19].”
BackgroundFederated Learning for Healthcare Informatics
Xu, J., Glicksberg, B. S., Su, C., Walker, P., Bian, J., & Wang, F. (2021) · Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.1007/s41666-020-00082-4 · Cited by 1,542 · cited 1×
“examples of options to boost data availability, as they can allow for model training across multiple institutions without transfer of patient data (See Box 1) [18, 19].”
BackgroundChecklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): a guide for authors and reviewers
Mongan, J., Moy, L., & Kahn, C. E. (2020) · Radiology: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1148/ryai.2020200029 · Cited by 1,443 · cited 1×
“Regulators can look towards AI-reporting recommendations in academia as a reference when formulating validation criteria, as the research community has recently developed a number of checklists designed to quantify the robustness of artificial intelligence studies [24, 25].”
BackgroundLiu, X., Cruz Rivera, S., Moher, D., Calvert, M. J., Denniston, A. K., The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Steering Group, Chan, A.-W., Darzi, A., Holmes, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x · Cited by 1,421
Digital technology and COVID-19
Ting, D. S. W., Carin, L., Dzau, V., & Wong, T. Y. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0824-5 · Cited by 1,413
Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity.
Rajkomar, A., Hardt, M., Howell, M. D., Corrado, G., & Chin, M. H. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1990 · Cited by 1,341
Benjamens, S., Dhunnoo, P., & Meskó, B. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00324-0 · Cited by 1,215
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/230538.230561 · Cited by 1,203 · cited 1×
“Interpretability is only part of the story when it comes to the discussion of human factors during algorithm implementation [31, 32] Developers should attempt to understand why population and public health practitioners choose to use or to ignore model recommendations and develop controls for these…”
BackgroundMuhammad, K. G. (2010) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjsf4fx · Cited by 809
Mettler, S. B. (2011) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226521664.001.0001 · Cited by 705
Liu, X., Rivera, S. C., Moher, D., Calvert, M. J., & Denniston, A. K. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m3164 · Cited by 702
The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-2391 · Cited by 661
Machine Learning and Health Care Disparities in Dermatology
Adamson, A. S., & Smith, A. (2018) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.2348 · Cited by 639 · cited 2×
“In the context of skin cancer, implicit bias contributes to delays in melanoma diagnoses among darkskinned patients that translate to worse outcomes [7].”
BackgroundSabin, J. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2012) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2011.300621 · Cited by 525 · cited 1×
“If this model uses subjective criteria such as provider-reported pain scores, this could bias against people of color who are generally perceived as having less pain than their white counterparts [20].”
MethodDevelopment of a Nomogram for Prediction of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery
Grobman, W. A., Lai, Y., Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., Leveno, K. J., Rouse, D. J., Varner, M. W., Moawad, A. H., Caritis, S. N., Harper, M., et al. (2007) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000259312.36053.02 · Cited by 498
On the interpretability of artificial intelligence in radiology: challenges and opportunities
Reyes, M., Meier, R., Pereira, S., Silva, C. A., Dahlweid, F.-M., Tengg-Kobligk, H. V., Summers, R. M., & Wiest, R. (2020) · Radiology: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1148/ryai.2020190043 · Cited by 484
The submerged state: how invisible government policies undermine American democracy
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-5960 · Cited by 391
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Department Analgesic Prescription
Tamayo‐Sarver, J. H., Hinze, S. W., Cydulka, R. K., & Baker, D. W. (2003) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.93.12.2067 · Cited by 367
Gerke, S., Babic, B., Evgeniou, T., & Cohen, I. G. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0262-2 · Cited by 359
Machine learning and algorithmic fairness in public and population health
Mhasawade, V., Zhao, Y., & Chunara, R. (2021) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00373-4 · Cited by 233
Human Factors Challenges for the Safe Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patient Care
Sujan, M., Furniss, D., Grundy, K., Grundy, H., Nelson, D., Elliott, M., White, S., Habli, I., & Reynolds, N. (2019) · BMJ Health & Care Informatics · doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2019-100081 · Cited by 144
Automatic Detection of Acromegaly From Facial Photographs Using Machine Learning Methods
Kong, X., Gong, S., Su, L., Howard, N., & Kong, Y. (2017) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.12.015 · Cited by 121
Schneider, H. J., Kosilek, R. P., Günther, M., Roemmler, J., Stalla, G. K., Sievers, C., Reincke, M., Schopohl, J., & Würtz, R. P. (2011) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2011-0237 · Cited by 103
Deep-Learning Approach to Automatic Identification of Facial Anomalies in Endocrine Disorders
Ren, W., Jiang, C., Gao, J., Xu, P., Zhang, D., Sun, Z., Liu, X., Deng, K., Bao, X., Sun, G., et al. (2019) · Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1159/000502211 · Cited by 50
Acromegaly: a challenging condition to diagnose
AlDallal, S. M. (2018) · International Journal of General Medicine · doi:10.2147/ijgm.s169611 · Cited by 42
Allocation of COVID-19 Relief Funding to Disproportionately Black Counties
Kakani, P., Chandra, A., Mullainathan, S., & Obermeyer, Z. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.14978 · Cited by 41
Toward Efficient Automation of Interpretable Machine Learning
Kovalerchuk, B., & Neuhaus, N. (2018) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2018.8622433 · Cited by 15
RICORD: A Precedent for Open AI in COVID-19 Image Analytics
Bai, H. X., & Thomasian, N. M. (2021) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020204214 · Cited by 4
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 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
Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making
Cross, J. L., Choma, M. A., & Onofrey, J. A. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000651 · Cited by 607
Khalighi, S., Reddy, K. M., Midya, A., Pandav, K. B., Madabhushi, A., & Abedalthagafi, M. (2024) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-024-00575-0 · Cited by 364
A Scoping Review of Reporting Gaps in FDA-Approved AI Medical Devices
Muralidharan, V., Adewale, B. A., Huang, C. J., Nta, M. T., Ademiju, P. O., Pathmarajah, P., Hang, M. K., Adesanya, O., Abdullateef, R. O., Babatunde, A. O., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01270-x · Cited by 201
Ethical considerations on artificial intelligence in dentistry: A framework and checklist
Rokhshad, R., Ducret, M., Chaurasia, A., Karteva, T., Radenković, M., Roganović, J., Hamdan, M. H., Mohammad‐Rahimi, H., Krois, J., Lahoud, P., et al. (2023) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104593 · Cited by 149
A survey of recent methods for addressing AI fairness and bias in biomedicine
Yang, Y., Lin, M., Zhao, H., Peng, Y., Huang, F., & Lu, Z. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104646 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC8607970
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Public Health Policy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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
