Cited by 198Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Latent bias and the implementation of artificial intelligence in medicine

Open access
DeCamp, Matthew, Lindvall, Charlotta·2020·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Increasing recognition of biases in artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms has motivated the quest to build fair models, free of biases. However, building fair models may be only half the challenge. A seemingly fair model could involve, directly or indirectly, what we call “latent biases.” Just as latent errors are generally described as errors “waiting to happen” in complex systems, latent biases are biases waiting to happen. Here we describe 3 major challenges related to bias in AI algorithms and propose several ways of managing them. There is an urgent need to address latent biases before the widespread implementation of AI algorithms in clinical practice.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocaa094

Cites

10 of 10 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Pearson D. Americans ready to embrace healthcare AI on one condition. 2020. https://www.aiin.healthcare/americans-ready-embrace-healthcare- ai-one-conditionAccessed March 28, 2020.
  2. Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelli- gence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). US Food and Drug Administration; 2019:20. https://www.fda. gov/media/122535/downloadAccessed March 28, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeCamp, M., & Lindvall, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Lindvall, Charlotta
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2020-06-18
Volume
27
Issue
12
Pages
2020-2023
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W3037480398
Cited by
198
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 3
FWCI
39.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Cambia Health Foundation Sojourns Scholar
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
algorithmic bias, artificial intelligence in healthcare, clinical implementation of AI, bias management, algorithmic errors
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Prejudice, Bias, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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