Algorithmic individual fairness and healthcare: a scoping review.

IF 2.5 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2024-12-30 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae149
Joshua W Anderson, Shyam Visweswaran
{"title":"Algorithmic individual fairness and healthcare: a scoping review.","authors":"Joshua W Anderson, Shyam Visweswaran","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Statistical and artificial intelligence algorithms are increasingly being developed for use in healthcare. These algorithms may reflect biases that magnify disparities in clinical care, and there is a growing need for understanding how algorithmic biases can be mitigated in pursuit of algorithmic fairness. We conducted a scoping review on algorithmic individual fairness (IF) to understand the current state of research in the metrics and methods developed to achieve IF and their applications in healthcare.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We searched four databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and medRxiv for algorithmic IF metrics, algorithmic bias mitigation, and healthcare applications. Our search was restricted to articles published between January 2013 and November 2024. We identified 2498 articles through database searches and seven additional articles, of which 32 articles were included in the review. Data from the selected articles were extracted, and the findings were synthesized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on the 32 articles in the review, we identified several themes, including philosophical underpinnings of fairness, IF metrics, mitigation methods for achieving IF, implications of achieving IF on group fairness and vice versa, and applications of IF in healthcare.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We find that research of IF is still in their early stages, particularly in healthcare, as evidenced by the limited number of relevant articles published between 2013 and 2024. While healthcare applications of IF remain sparse, growth has been steady in number of publications since 2012. The limitations of group fairness further emphasize the need for alternative approaches like IF. However, IF itself is not without challenges, including subjective definitions of similarity and potential bias encoding from data-driven methods. These findings, coupled with the limitations of the review process, underscore the need for more comprehensive research on the evolution of IF metrics and definitions to advance this promising field.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While significant work has been done on algorithmic IF in recent years, the definition, use, and study of IF remain in their infancy, especially in healthcare. Future research is needed to comprehensively apply and evaluate IF in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"8 1","pages":"ooae149"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11684587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Statistical and artificial intelligence algorithms are increasingly being developed for use in healthcare. These algorithms may reflect biases that magnify disparities in clinical care, and there is a growing need for understanding how algorithmic biases can be mitigated in pursuit of algorithmic fairness. We conducted a scoping review on algorithmic individual fairness (IF) to understand the current state of research in the metrics and methods developed to achieve IF and their applications in healthcare.

Materials and methods: We searched four databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and medRxiv for algorithmic IF metrics, algorithmic bias mitigation, and healthcare applications. Our search was restricted to articles published between January 2013 and November 2024. We identified 2498 articles through database searches and seven additional articles, of which 32 articles were included in the review. Data from the selected articles were extracted, and the findings were synthesized.

Results: Based on the 32 articles in the review, we identified several themes, including philosophical underpinnings of fairness, IF metrics, mitigation methods for achieving IF, implications of achieving IF on group fairness and vice versa, and applications of IF in healthcare.

Discussion: We find that research of IF is still in their early stages, particularly in healthcare, as evidenced by the limited number of relevant articles published between 2013 and 2024. While healthcare applications of IF remain sparse, growth has been steady in number of publications since 2012. The limitations of group fairness further emphasize the need for alternative approaches like IF. However, IF itself is not without challenges, including subjective definitions of similarity and potential bias encoding from data-driven methods. These findings, coupled with the limitations of the review process, underscore the need for more comprehensive research on the evolution of IF metrics and definitions to advance this promising field.

Conclusion: While significant work has been done on algorithmic IF in recent years, the definition, use, and study of IF remain in their infancy, especially in healthcare. Future research is needed to comprehensively apply and evaluate IF in healthcare.

算法个人公平和医疗保健:范围审查。
目标:统计和人工智能算法越来越多地被开发用于医疗保健。这些算法可能反映了放大临床护理差异的偏见,并且越来越需要了解如何在追求算法公平的过程中减轻算法偏见。我们对算法个人公平(IF)进行了范围审查,以了解为实现IF而开发的指标和方法的研究现状及其在医疗保健中的应用。材料和方法:我们检索了四个数据库:PubMed、ACM数字图书馆、IEEE explore和medRxiv,以获取算法中频指标、算法偏差缓解和医疗保健应用。我们的搜索仅限于2013年1月至2024年11月之间发表的文章。通过数据库检索,我们确定了2498篇文献和7篇附加文献,其中32篇纳入综述。从选定的文章中提取数据,并对研究结果进行综合。结果:基于综述中的32篇文章,我们确定了几个主题,包括公平的哲学基础、IF指标、实现IF的缓解方法、实现IF对群体公平的影响,反之亦然,以及IF在医疗保健中的应用。讨论:我们发现IF的研究仍处于早期阶段,特别是在医疗保健领域,从2013年至2024年期间发表的相关文章数量有限可以证明。虽然IF的医疗应用仍然很少,但自2012年以来,其出版物数量稳步增长。群体公平的局限性进一步强调了对IF等替代方法的需求。然而,IF本身并非没有挑战,包括对相似性的主观定义和来自数据驱动方法的潜在偏见编码。这些发现,加上审查过程的局限性,强调需要对IF指标和定义的演变进行更全面的研究,以推进这一有前途的领域。结论:虽然近年来在算法IF方面做了大量工作,但IF的定义、使用和研究仍处于起步阶段,特别是在医疗保健领域。未来的研究需要全面地应用和评估IF在医疗保健中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信