MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414264132 · doi:10.1002/sim.70234

What Is Fair? Defining Fairness in Machine Learning for Health

2025· review· en· W4414264132 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianhui Gao, Benson Chou, Zachary R. McCaw, Hilary Thurston, Paul Varghese, Chuan Hong, Jessica Gronsbell

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsOperationalizationFairness measureCapability approachMEDLINEHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring that machine-learning (ML) models are safe, effective, and equitable across all patients is critical for clinical decision-making and for preventing the amplification of existing health disparities. In this work, we examine how fairness is conceptualized in ML for health, including why ML models may lead to unfair decisions and how fairness has been measured in diverse real-world applications. We review commonly used fairness notions within group, individual, and causal-based frameworks. We also discuss the outlook for future research and highlight opportunities and challenges in operationalizing fairness in health-focused applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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