Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias
Perets, O.; Stango, E.; Ben Yehuda, E.; McNichol, M. C.; Celi, L. A.; Rappoport, N.; Dorotic, M.
Show abstract
11.1 ObjectivesBiases inherent in electronic health records (EHRs), and therefore in medical artificial intelligence (AI) models may significantly exacerbate health inequities and challenge the adoption of ethical and responsible AI in healthcare. Biases arise from multiple sources, some of which are not as documented in the literature. Biases are encoded in how the data has been collected and labeled, by implicit and unconscious biases of clinicians, or by the tools used for data processing. These biases and their encoding in healthcare records undermine the reliability of such data and bias clinical judgments and medical outcomes. Moreover, when healthcare records are used to build data-driven solutions, the biases are further exacerbated, resulting in systems that perpetuate biases and induce healthcare disparities. This literature scoping review aims to categorize the main sources of biases inherent in EHRs. 1.2 MethodsWe queried PubMed and Web of Science on January 19th, 2023, for peer-reviewed sources in English, published between 2016 and 2023, using the PRISMA approach to stepwise scoping of the literature. To select the papers that empirically analyze bias in EHR, from the initial yield of 430 papers, 27 duplicates were removed, and 403 studies were screened for eligibility. 196 articles were removed after the title and abstract screening, and 96 articles were excluded after the full-text review resulting in a final selection of 116 articles. 1.3 ResultsSystematic categorizations of diverse sources of bias are scarce in the literature, while the effects of separate studies are often convoluted and methodologically contestable. Our categorization of published empirical evidence identified the six main sources of bias: a) bias arising from past clinical trials; b) data-related biases arising from missing, incomplete information or poor labeling of data; human-related bias induced by c) implicit clinician bias, d) referral and admission bias; e) diagnosis or risk disparities bias and finally, (f) biases in machinery and algorithms. 1.4 ConclusionsMachine learning and data-driven solutions can potentially transform healthcare delivery, but not without limitations. The core inputs in the systems (data and human factors) currently contain several sources of bias that are poorly documented and analyzed for remedies. The current evidence heavily focuses on data-related biases, while other sources are less often analyzed or anecdotal. However, these different sources of biases add to one another exponentially. Therefore, to understand the issues holistically we need to explore these diverse sources of bias. While racial biases in EHR have been often documented, other sources of biases have been less frequently investigated and documented (e.g. gender-related biases, sexual orientation discrimination, socially induced biases, and implicit, often unconscious, human-related cognitive biases). Moreover, some existing studies lack causal evidence, illustrating the different prevalences of disease across groups, which does not per se prove the causality. Our review shows that data-, human- and machine biases are prevalent in healthcare and they significantly impact healthcare outcomes and judgments and exacerbate disparities and differential treatment. Understanding how diverse biases affect AI systems and recommendations is critical. We suggest that researchers and medical personnel should develop safeguards and adopt data-driven solutions with a "bias-in-mind" approach. More empirical evidence is needed to tease out the effects of different sources of bias on health outcomes. CCS Concepts* Computing methodologies [->] Machine learning; Machine learning approaches; * Applied computing [->] Health care information systems; Health informatics; * Social and professional topics [->] Personal health records; Medical records. ACM Reference FormatOriel Perets, Emanuela Stagno, Eyal Ben Yehuda, Megan McNichol, Leo Anthony Celi, Nadav Rappoport, and Matilda Dorotic. 2024. Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias. 1, 1 (April 2024), 24 pages. https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 95%
- Development and preliminary testing of Health Equity Across the AI Lifecycle (HEAAL): A framework for healthcare delivery organizations to mitigate the risk of AI solutions worsening health inequities 95%
- Raising awareness of potential biases in medical machine learning: Experience from a Datathon 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A scoping review of fair machine learning techniques when using real-world data 94%
- A Deep Learning Approach for Transgender and Gender Diverse Patient Identification in Electronic Health Records 93%
- Using computable knowledge mined from the literature to elucidate confounders for EHR-based pharmacovigilance 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 95%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 94%
- Demographic and socioeconomic determinants of access to care: A subgroup disparity analysis using new equity-focused measurements 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.