Racial Bias Can Confuse AI for Genomic Studies
Open accessAbstract
Large-scale genomic studies are important ways to comprehensively decode the human genomics, and provide valuable insights to human disease causalities and phenotype developments. Genomic studies are in need of high throughput bioinformatics analyses to harness and integrate such big data. It is in this overarching context that artificial intelligence (AI) offers enormous potentials to advance genomic studies. However, racial bias is always an important issue in the data. It is usually due to the accumulation process of the dataset that inevitability involved diverse subjects with different races. How can race bias affect the outcomes of AI methods? In this work, we performed comprehensive analyses taking The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project as a case study. We construct a survival model as well as multiple artificial intelligence prediction models to analyze potential confusion caused by racial bias. From the genomic discovery, we demonstrated cancer associated genes identified from the major race hardly overlap with the discoveries from minor races from the same causal gene discovery model. We demonstrated that the biased racial distribution will greatly affect the cancer-associated genes, even taking the racial identity as a confounding factor in the model. The prediction models will be potentially risky and less accurate due to the existence of racial bias in projects. Cancer genes from the overall patient model with strong racial bias will be less informative to the minor races. Meanwhile, when the racial bias is less severe, the major conclusion from the overall analysis can be less useful even for the major group.
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
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?
AI systems may produce outputs that are skewed by biases related to race, ethnicity, sex, religion, politics, and other factors.
“AI systems may also produce outputs that are skewed by biases related to race, ethnicity, sex, religion, politics, and other factors. [5, 23, 53–56]”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [55]
Bias is a problem in using AI systems to find relationships between genomics and disease due to racial and ethnic prejudices in genomic databases.
“Bias is also a problem in using AI systems to find relationships between genomics and disease due to racial and ethnic prejudices in genomic databases [55].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- ICML '07 & ILP '07: The 24th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning held in conjunction with the 2007 International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming was held in Corvalis Oregon USA. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
- Xu, T., White, J., Kalkan, S., Gunes, H. (2020). Investigating bias and fairness in facial expression recognition. European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 506-523. Cham: Springer.
- Wang, M., Deng, W. (2020). Mitigating bias in face recognition using skewness-aware reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 9322-9331.
- Tomczak, K., Czerwińska, P., Wiznerowicz, M. (2015). The cancer genome atlas (TCGA): An immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemporary Oncology, 19(1A), A68-A77. DOI 10.5114/wo.2014.47136. · DOI
- Authors
- Dai, B., Xu, Z., Li, H., Wang, B., Cai, J., & Liu, X.
- Affiliations
- Beihang University (CN)
- Hubei University (CN)
- Peking University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Xiaomo
- Venue
- Oncologie
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2022
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-130
- ISSN
- 1292-3818 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4226336744
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6
- FWCI
- 2.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- ONCOLOGIE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81400561)
- State Key Laboratory of Tribology (SKLTKF19B11)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Keywords
- racial bias, genomic studies, artificial intelligence in genomics, cancer genes, TCGA, survival models, prediction model, confounding factors, minority groups, algorithmic fairness
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