MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408314709 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01503-7

Bias recognition and mitigation strategies in artificial intelligence healthcare applications

2025· review· en· W4408314709 on OpenAlexaff
Fereshteh Hasanzadeh, Colin B. Josephson, G Waters, Demilade Adedinsewo, Zahra Azizi, James A. White

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is delivering value across all aspects of clinical practice. However, bias may exacerbate healthcare disparities. This review examines the origins of bias in healthcare AI, strategies for mitigation, and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders towards achieving fair and equitable use. We highlight the importance of systematically identifying bias and engaging relevant mitigation activities throughout the AI model lifecycle, from model conception through to deployment and longitudinal surveillance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.454
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.048 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations206
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207