 Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-makingJames L Cross, Michael A Choma and John A Onofrey PLOS Digital Health, 2024, vol. 3, issue 11, 1-19 Abstract: Biases in medical artificial intelligence (AI) arise and compound throughout the AI lifecycle. These biases can have significant clinical consequences, especially in applications that involve clinical decision-making. Left unaddressed, biased medical AI can lead to substandard clinical decisions and the perpetuation and exacerbation of longstanding healthcare disparities. We discuss potential biases that can arise at different stages in the AI development pipeline and how they can affect AI algorithms and clinical decision-making. Bias can occur in data features and labels, model development and evaluation, deployment, and publication. Insufficient sample sizes for certain patient groups can result in suboptimal performance, algorithm underestimation, and clinically unmeaningful predictions. Missing patient findings can also produce biased model behavior, including capturable but nonrandomly missing data, such as diagnosis codes, and data that is not usually or not easily captured, such as social determinants of health. Expertly annotated labels used to train supervised learning models may reflect implicit cognitive biases or substandard care practices. Overreliance on performance metrics during model development may obscure bias and diminish a model’s clinical utility. When applied to data outside the training cohort, model performance can deteriorate from previous validation and can do so differentially across subgroups. How end users interact with deployed solutions can introduce bias. Finally, where models are developed and published, and by whom, impacts the trajectories and priorities of future medical AI development. Solutions to mitigate bias must be implemented with care, which include the collection of large and diverse data sets, statistical debiasing methods, thorough model evaluation, emphasis on model interpretability, and standardized bias reporting and transparency requirements. Prior to real-world implementation in clinical settings, rigorous validation through clinical trials is critical to demonstrate unbiased application. Addressing biases across model development stages is crucial for ensuring all patients benefit equitably from the future of medical AI.Author summary: In this work, we explore the challenges of biases that emerge in medical artificial intelligence (AI). These biases, if not adequately addressed, can lead to poor clinical decisions and worsen existing healthcare inequalities by influencing an AI’s decisions in ways that disadvantage some patient groups over others. We discuss several stages in the process of developing a medical AI model where bias can emerge, including collecting data, training a model, and real-world application. For instance, the way data is collected can exclude or misrepresent certain patient populations, leading to less effective and inequitable AI systems. We provide examples, both hypothetical and real, to illustrate how these biases can alter clinical outcomes. These examples show that biases are not just possible; they are a significant risk if not actively countered. Our review stresses the importance of diverse and comprehensive data sets, sophisticated statistical methods to remove biases, and clear reporting standards—key components of a future where medical AI works equitably and supports high-quality clinical care for everyone. Date: 2024 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000651 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000651 Access Statistics for this article More articles in PLOS Digital Health from Public Library of Science |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.