The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unmasking bias in artificial intelligence: a systematic review of bias detection and mitigation strategies in electronic health record-based models
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in conjunction with electronic health records (EHRs) holds transformative potential to improve healthcare. However, addressing bias in AI, which risks worsening healthcare disparities, cannot be overlooked. This study reviews methods to handle various biases in AI models developed using EHR data. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, analyzing articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE published between January 01, 2010 and December 17, 2023. The review identified key biases, outlined strategies for detecting and mitigating bias throughout the AI model development, and analyzed metrics for bias assessment. Results: Of the 450 articles retrieved, 20 met our criteria, revealing 6 major bias types: algorithmic, confounding, implicit, measurement, selection, and temporal. The AI models were primarily developed for predictive tasks, yet none have been deployed in real-world healthcare settings. Five studies concentrated on the detection of implicit and algorithmic biases employing fairness metrics like statistical parity, equal opportunity, and predictive equity. Fifteen studies proposed strategies for mitigating biases, especially targeting implicit and selection biases. These strategies, evaluated through both performance and fairness metrics, predominantly involved data collection and preprocessing techniques like resampling and reweighting. Discussion: This review highlights evolving strategies to mitigate bias in EHR-based AI models, emphasizing the urgent need for both standardized and detailed reporting of the methodologies and systematic real-world testing and evaluation. Such measures are essential for gauging models’ practical impact and fostering ethical AI that ensures fairness and equity in healthcare.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Thus, its responses can reflect the subjective leanings originated from its data and embedded in its training, poten tially skewing responses in subtle yet significant ways (Chen et al., 2024).”
From If ChatGPT can do it, where is my creativity? generative AI boosts performance but diminishes experience in creative writing (2025) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, these reviews often overlook the importance of addressing bias across multiple levels of the development process.”
From Advancing Health Equity through Multi-Level Fairness in Health Informatics (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
Topol, E. J. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 · Cited by 10,450
A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812 · cited 2×
“Our analyses were further enhanced by consolidating established bias risk assessment tools, such as ROBINS-I, 16 ROBINS-E, 17 and PROBAST, 18 and relevant review articles, such as Mehrabi et al 19 which categorized potential biases in AI applications.”
Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 · Cited by 3,212 · cited 1×
“8,9 Biases can emerge at various stages of the model development lifecycle, 10–12 underlining the importance of developing and implementing strategies for effective detection, mitigation, and evaluation of biases.”
PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies
Wolff, R. F., Moons, K. G. M., Riley, R. D., Whiting, P. F., Westwood, M., Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Kleijnen, J., Mallett, S., & for the PROBAST Group† (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1376 · Cited by 2,984 · cited 1×
“Our analyses were further enhanced by consolidating established bias risk assessment tools, such as ROBINS-I, 16 ROBINS-E, 17 and PROBAST, 18 and relevant review articles, such as Mehrabi et al 19 which categorized potential biases in AI applications.”
Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records
Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A. M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P. J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al. (2018) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-018-0029-1 · Cited by 2,648 · cited 1×
“46 On the other hand, AI models may exhibit biases, and if left unaddressed, they have the potential to exacerbate healthcare disparities.”
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review
FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8 · Cited by 2,556 · cited 1×
“22 It often stems from preexisting bias within the data (such as stereotypes and flawed case assumptions) which may occur in the data collection and data preprocessing steps.”
Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records.
Rajkomar, A., Oren, E., Chen, K., Dai, A. M., Hajaj, N., Hardt, M., Liu, P. J., Liu, X., Marcus, J., Sun, M., et al. (2018) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 2,242
Potential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data
Gianfrancesco, M. A., Tamang, S., Yazdany, J., & Schmajuk, G. (2018) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763 · Cited by 1,395 · cited 1×
“48,49 In this systematic review, we have comprehensively identified and scrutinized potential biases in AI models developed from EHR data, revealing their potential influence on healthcare disparities.”
Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care
Wiens, J., Saria, S., Sendak, M., Ghassemi, M., Liu, V. X., Doshi-Velez, F., Jung, K., Heller, K., Kale, D., Saeed, M., et al. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6 · Cited by 1,266 · cited 1×
“13 While a few scoping reviews have been conducted to understand bias in broader medical AI, 14,15 a focused review on AI models derived from EHR data is notably absent.”
Bias in data‐driven artificial intelligence systems—An introductory survey
Ntoutsi, E., Fafalios, P., Gadiraju, U., Iosifidis, V., Nejdl, W., Vidal, M., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Papadopoulos, S., Krasanakis, E., et al. (2020) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1356 · Cited by 1,043 · cited 1×
“48,49 In this systematic review, we have comprehensively identified and scrutinized potential biases in AI models developed from EHR data, revealing their potential influence on healthcare disparities.”
Addressing bias in big data and AI for health care: A call for open science
Norori, N., Hu, Q., Aellen, F. M., Faraci, F. D., & Tzovara, A. (2021) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100347 · Cited by 903
Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.04053 · Cited by 646 · cited 2×
“20,21”
Fairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646 · cited 2×
“20,21”
Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities—A global review
Celi, L. A., Cellini, J., Charpignon, M.-L., Dee, E. C., Dernoncourt, F., Eber, R., Mitchell, W. G., Moukheiber, L., Schirmer, J., Situ, J., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000022 · Cited by 576 · cited 1×
“13 While a few scoping reviews have been conducted to understand bias in broader medical AI, 14,15 a focused review on AI models derived from EHR data is notably absent.”
Censoring Representations with an AdversaryPreprint
Edwards, H., & Storkey, A. (2015) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.05897 · Cited by 563 · cited 1×
“62 In this review, only 1 study 41 employed postprocessing methods to adjust model output, an area currently underutilized.”
HITECH Act Drove Large Gains In Hospital Electronic Health Record Adoption
Adler‐Milstein, J., & Jha, A. K. (2017) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1651 · Cited by 462
Personalized Medicine and the Power of Electronic Health Records
Abul-Husn, N. S., & Kenny, E. E. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.039 · Cited by 355 · cited 1×
“8,9 Biases can emerge at various stages of the model development lifecycle, 10–12 underlining the importance of developing and implementing strategies for effective detection, mitigation, and evaluation of biases.”
Fletcher, R. R., Nakeshimana, A., & Olubeko, O. (2021) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2020.561802 · Cited by 305 · cited 1×
“55 This oversight can mask the differential impacts of AI models on diverse patient populations, inadvertently overlooking potential biases.”
A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape
Castelnovo, A., Crupi, R., Greco, G., Regoli, D., Penco, I. G., & Cosentini, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07939-1 · Cited by 292
Belenguer, L. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00138-8 · Cited by 289
Bero, L. A., Chartres, N., Diong, J. H. L., Fabbri, A., Ghersi, D., Lam, J., Lau, A., McDonald, S., Mintzes, B. J., Sutton, P., et al. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0915-2 · Cited by 283 · cited 1×
“Our analyses were further enhanced by consolidating established bias risk assessment tools, such as ROBINS-I, 16 ROBINS-E, 17 and PROBAST, 18 and relevant review articles, such as Mehrabi et al 19 which categorized potential biases in AI applications.”
Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair RepresentationsPreprint
Beutel, A., Chen, J., Zhao, Z., & Chi, E. H. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.00075 · Cited by 282
Mitigating bias in machine learning for medicine
Vokinger, K. N., Feuerriegel, S., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2021) · Communications Medicine · doi:10.1038/s43856-021-00028-w · Cited by 269
Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging
Lara, M. A. R., Echeveste, R., & Ferrante, E. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32186-3 · Cited by 224
Temporal quality degradation in AI models
Jarquin, D. V., Sharp, A., Zhang, R., Nguyen, T., Hoang, A. T., & Pianykh, O. S. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-15245-z · Cited by 216 · cited 1×
“53,54 No study has yet developed a comprehensive pipeline to address more than 2 types of bias simultaneously.”
Interpretability and fairness evaluation of deep learning models on MIMIC-IV dataset
Meng, C., Trinh, L., Xu, N., Enouen, J., & Liu, Y. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-11012-2 · Cited by 213 · cited 2×
“27,31,35,38,39 only detected the presence of bias in AI models by introducing quantitative measurement to identify and explain source of bias, as listed in Table 2.”
A Convex Framework for Fair Regression
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Joseph, M., Kearns, M., Morgenstern, J., Neel, S., & Roth, A. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.02409 · Cited by 198
Evaluation and Mitigation of Racial Bias in Clinical Machine Learning Models: Scoping Review
Huang, J., Galal, G., Etemadi, M., & Vaidyanathan, M. (2022) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/36388 · Cited by 186 · cited 2×
“Second, we expanded our scope by integrating insights from the broader literature on healthcare AI, including works beyond our systematic review.”
Artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making processes
García‐Vidal, C., Sanjuan, G., Puerta‐Alcalde, P., Moreno-García, E., & Soriano, À. (2019) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.07.019 · Cited by 159
Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.013 · Cited by 123 · cited 1×
“25 Incorrect or biased labels resulting from coding errors or subjective interpretations by annotators can also impact the performance and validity of the machine learning models.”
Distinguishing Selection Bias and Confounding Bias in Comparative Effectiveness Research
Haneuse, S. (2013) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000011 · Cited by 94 · cited 2×
“24 Confounding bias could be introduced when collecting data as well as training models.”
Evaluating and mitigating bias in machine learning models for cardiovascular disease prediction
Li, F., Wu, P., Ong, H. H., Peterson, J. F., Wei, W., & Zhao, J. (2023) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104294 · Cited by 91 · cited 5×
“5,28–30, 32, 33 ,”
InfluentialTemporal bias in case-control design: preventing reliable predictions of the future
Yuan, W., Beaulieu‐Jones, B. K., Yu, K., Lipnick, S., Palmer, N., Loscalzo, J., Cai, T., & Kohane, I. S. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21390-2 · Cited by 90 · cited 1×
“53,54 No study has yet developed a comprehensive pipeline to address more than 2 types of bias simultaneously.”
Juhn, Y. J., Ryu, E., Wi, C.-I., King, K. S., Malik, M., Romero-Brufau, S., Weng, C., Sohn, S., Sharp, R. R., & Halamka, J. D. (2022) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac052 · Cited by 83 · cited 7×
“Bias detection in this review primarily relied on analyzing performance differences among groups, with 1 study introducing the HOUSE index 27 as an innovative feature to better capture socioeconomic status and related biased features in the original data.”
InfluentialPeeking into a black box, the fairness and generalizability of a MIMIC-III benchmarking model.
Röösli, E., Bozkurt, S., & Hernandez-Boussard, T. (2022) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-021-01110-7 · Cited by 73
Prevention of Bias and Discrimination in Clinical Practice Algorithms
Shachar, C., & Gerke, S. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.23867 · Cited by 53 · cited 1×
“There is an urgent need to thoroughly evaluate possible biases produced by AI models, 47 and assess the fairness of AI meth-ods to reduce healthcare disparities.”
Allen, A. O., Mataraso, S. J., Siefkas, A. C., Burdick, H., Braden, G. L., Dellinger, R. P., McCoy, A., Pellegrini, E., Hoffman, J. L., Green‐Saxena, A., et al. (2020) · JMIR Public Health and Surveillance · doi:10.2196/22400 · Cited by 51 · cited 3×
“4,5,27–30, 33, 34, 36 Figure 2 demonstrates the EHR-based AI application development stages, potential biases at each stage and corresponding bias mitigation approaches.”
Calibrated Fairness in BanditsPreprint
Liu, Y., Radanović, G., Christos Dimitrakakis, A., Mandal, D., & Parkes, D. C. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.01875 · Cited by 47
Getz, K., Hubbard, R. A., & Linn, K. A. (2022) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001578 · Cited by 42 · cited 2×
“43 The other studies used datasets derived from individual hospitals or integrated healthcare delivery systems.”
Deep Learning-based Propensity Scores for Confounding Control in Comparative Effectiveness Research
Weberpals, J. G., Becker, T., Davies, J., Schmich, F., Rüttinger, D., Theis, F. J., & Bauer‐Mehren, A. (2021) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001338 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“Although confounding and algorithmic biases have been extensively studied in the fields of computer science and statistics, 50–52 their distinct impact on health disparities has not been thoroughly explored when applied to EHR data.”
Wang, H., Li, Y., Naidech, A. M., & Luo, Y. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-01871-0 · Cited by 28 · cited 1×
“27,31,35,38,39 only detected the presence of bias in AI models by introducing quantitative measurement to identify and explain source of bias, as listed in Table 2.”
Fairness in the prediction of acute postoperative pain using machine learning models
Davoudi, A., Sajdeya, R., Ison, R., Hagen, J. E., Rashidi, P., Price, C. C., & Tighe, P. J. (2023) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.970281 · Cited by 25 · cited 3×
“4,5,27–30, 33, 34, 36 Figure 2 demonstrates the EHR-based AI application development stages, potential biases at each stage and corresponding bias mitigation approaches.”
A transformer-based deep learning approach for fairly predicting post-liver transplant risk factors
Li, C., Jiang, X., & Zhang, K. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104545 · Cited by 25 · cited 3×
“…diseases’ diagnosis or risk prediction, 27–31 treatment effect or disease progression prediction, 4,32–35 mortality or survival prediction, 5,36–39 medication or test usage prediction, diseases’ risk-association prediction, 40,41 health status classification, 42 and EHR miss-ingness imputation.”
A multi-step approach to managing missing data in time and patient variant electronic health records
Cesare, N., & Were, L. P. O. (2022) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-022-05911-w · Cited by 14
Wolk, D. M., Lanyado, A., Tice, A. M., Shermohammed, M., Kinar, Y., Goren, A., Chabris, C. F., Meyer, M. N., Shoshan, A., & Abedi, V. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm11154342 · Cited by 14 · cited 3×
“5,28–30, 32, 33 ,”
Bipartite Ranking Fairness Through a Model Agnostic Ordering Adjustment
Cui, S., Pan, W., Zhang, C., & Wang, F. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3290949 · Cited by 13 · cited 2×
“29,31,37,41,44 Three studies published in 2023 37,41,44 indicate an increasing trend in addressing the generalizability and robustness of bias handling.”
Natural language processing to identify reasons for sex disparity in statin prescriptions
Witting, C., Azizi, Z., Gomez, S. E., Zammit, A., Sarraju, A., Ngo, S., Hernandez-Boussard, T., & Rodriguez, F. (2023) · American Journal of Preventive Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ajpc.2023.100496 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“Two recent studies in 2023 56,57 that aimed to develop AI methods that directly detect and elucidate more nuanced bias in EHR data.”
Yin, K., Qian, D., & Cheung, W. K. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2023.3321738 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“29,31,37,41,44 Three studies published in 2023 37,41,44 indicate an increasing trend in addressing the generalizability and robustness of bias handling.”
Hayakawa, T., Nagashima, T., Akimoto, H., Minagawa, K., Takahashi, Y., & Asai, S. (2023) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076231178577 · Cited by 6 · cited 1×
“Although confounding and algorithmic biases have been extensively studied in the fields of computer science and statistics, 50–52 their distinct impact on health disparities has not been thoroughly explored when applied to EHR data.”
Lee, T., Wollstein, G., Madu, C. T., Wronka, A., Zheng, L., Zambrano, R., Schuman, J. S., & Hu, J. (2023) · Translational Vision Science & Technology · doi:10.1167/tvst.12.12.2 · Cited by 5
Timeline Registration for Electronic Health Records.
Jiang, S., Han, R., Chakrabarty, K., Page, D., Stead, W. W., & Zhang, A. R. (2023) · PubMed Central · Cited by 3
A survey on bias in machine learning researchPreprint
Mikołajczyk, A., & Grochowski, M. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.11254
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Johnson, 2000, Sampling bias and other methodological threats to the validity of health survey research, Int J Stress Manag, 7, 247, 10.1023/A:1009589812697 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Saeidnia, H. R., Fotami, S. G. H., Lund, B. D., & Ghiasi, N. (2024) · Social Sciences · doi:10.3390/socsci13070381 · Cited by 227
“Future research should aim to overcome these limitations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of ethical considerations in AI-based mental health interventions and to inform responsible practice and policy development.”
Bouguettaya, A., Stuart, E. M., & Aboujaoude, E. N. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01746-4 · Cited by 60
Transparency of medical artificial intelligence systems
Kim, C., Gadgil, S. U., & Lee, S. (2025) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-025-00363-w · Cited by 60
“Detailed documentation allows developers to mitigate potential biases during model training using computational techniques, even if biases are discovered after data collection 17,66,67 .”
Jamshidi, S., Nikanjam, A., Nafi, K. W., Khomh, F., & Rasta, R. (2025) · Internet of Things · doi:10.1016/j.iot.2025.101531 · Cited by 55
Mei, P., Brewis, D. N., Nwaiwu, F., Sumanathilaka, D., Alva-Manchego, F., & Demaree-Cotton, J. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100140 · Cited by 50
“Thus, its responses can reflect the subjective leanings originated from its data and embedded in its training, potentially skewing responses in subtle yet significant ways (Chen et al., 2024).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, F., Wang, L., Hong, J., Jiang, J., & Zhou, L.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Wellesley High School , Wellesley, MA 02481, United States
- Corresponding author
- Chen, Feng
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-03-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1172-1183
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC11031231
- OpenAlex
- W4393119757
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 72 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 15
- FWCI
- 13.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Library of Medicine (1R01LM014239)
- 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 › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- algorithmic bias, bias detection, bias mitigation, electronic health records, artificial intelligence in healthcare, health care disparities, fairness metrics, implicit bias, selection bias, confounding, measurement bias, temporal bias, resampling, reweighting, ethical AI
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Female, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Pregnancy, Bias, Selection Bias, Benchmarking, Electronic Health Records
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
