Clinical Algorithms and the Legacy of Race-Based Correction: Historical Errors, Contemporary Revisions and Equity-Oriented Methodologies for Epidemiologists.
IF 3.4 2区 医学Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Laura J Horsfall, Paulina Bondaronek, Julia Ive, Shoba Poduval
{"title":"Clinical Algorithms and the Legacy of Race-Based Correction: Historical Errors, Contemporary Revisions and Equity-Oriented Methodologies for Epidemiologists.","authors":"Laura J Horsfall, Paulina Bondaronek, Julia Ive, Shoba Poduval","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S527000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical algorithms are widely used tools for predicting, diagnosing, and managing diseases. However, race correction in these algorithms has faced increasing scrutiny for potentially perpetuating health disparities and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. This narrative review synthesizes historical, clinical, and methodological literature to examine the origins and consequences of race correction in clinical algorithms. We focus primarily on developments in the United States and the United Kingdom, where many race-based algorithms originated. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources, we discuss the persistence of race-based adjustments, the implications of their removal, and emerging strategies for bias mitigation and fairness in algorithm development. The practice began in the mid-19th century with the spirometer, which measured lung capacity and was used to reinforce racial hierarchies by characterizing lower lung capacity for Black people. Despite critiques that these differences reflect environmental exposure rather than inherited traits, the belief in race-based biological differences in lung capacity and other physiological functions, including cardiac, renal, and obstetric processes, persists in contemporary clinical algorithms. Concerns about race correction compounding health inequities have led many medical organizations to re-evaluate their algorithms, with some removing race entirely. Transitioning to race-neutral equations in areas like pulmonary function testing and obstetrics has shown promise in enhancing fairness without compromising accuracy. However, the impact of these changes varies across clinical contexts, highlighting the need for careful bias identification and mitigation. Future efforts should focus on incorporating diverse data sources, capturing true social and biological health determinants, implementing bias detection and fairness strategies, ensuring transparent reporting, and engaging with diverse communities. Educating students and trainees on race as a sociopolitical construct is also important for raising awareness and achieving health equity. Moving forward, regular monitoring, evaluation, and refinement of approaches in real-world settings are needed for clinical algorithms serve all patients equitably and effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"17 ","pages":"647-662"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12266067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S527000","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Clinical algorithms are widely used tools for predicting, diagnosing, and managing diseases. However, race correction in these algorithms has faced increasing scrutiny for potentially perpetuating health disparities and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. This narrative review synthesizes historical, clinical, and methodological literature to examine the origins and consequences of race correction in clinical algorithms. We focus primarily on developments in the United States and the United Kingdom, where many race-based algorithms originated. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources, we discuss the persistence of race-based adjustments, the implications of their removal, and emerging strategies for bias mitigation and fairness in algorithm development. The practice began in the mid-19th century with the spirometer, which measured lung capacity and was used to reinforce racial hierarchies by characterizing lower lung capacity for Black people. Despite critiques that these differences reflect environmental exposure rather than inherited traits, the belief in race-based biological differences in lung capacity and other physiological functions, including cardiac, renal, and obstetric processes, persists in contemporary clinical algorithms. Concerns about race correction compounding health inequities have led many medical organizations to re-evaluate their algorithms, with some removing race entirely. Transitioning to race-neutral equations in areas like pulmonary function testing and obstetrics has shown promise in enhancing fairness without compromising accuracy. However, the impact of these changes varies across clinical contexts, highlighting the need for careful bias identification and mitigation. Future efforts should focus on incorporating diverse data sources, capturing true social and biological health determinants, implementing bias detection and fairness strategies, ensuring transparent reporting, and engaging with diverse communities. Educating students and trainees on race as a sociopolitical construct is also important for raising awareness and achieving health equity. Moving forward, regular monitoring, evaluation, and refinement of approaches in real-world settings are needed for clinical algorithms serve all patients equitably and effectively.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.
Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews.
Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews.
When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes.
The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.