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
Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-07-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CLEP.S527000
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.

临床算法和基于种族的纠正的遗产:历史错误,当代修订和流行病学家公平导向的方法。
临床算法是广泛应用于预测、诊断和管理疾病的工具。然而,这些算法中的种族校正面临着越来越多的审查,因为它可能使健康差距永久化,并强化有害的刻板印象。本文综合了历史、临床和方法学文献,探讨了临床算法中种族校正的起源和后果。我们主要关注美国和英国的发展,那里是许多基于种族的算法的发源地。利用跨学科的资源,我们讨论了基于种族的调整的持久性,它们的移除的影响,以及在算法开发中减轻偏见和公平的新策略。这种做法始于19世纪中期的肺活量计,它测量肺活量,并被用来通过表征黑人的肺活量较低来强化种族等级。尽管有批评认为这些差异反映的是环境暴露而非遗传特征,但在肺活量和其他生理功能(包括心脏、肾脏和产科过程)方面基于种族的生物学差异的信念仍然存在于当代临床算法中。由于担心种族矫正会加剧健康不平等,许多医疗机构重新评估了他们的算法,有些机构甚至完全取消了种族歧视。在肺功能检测和产科等领域向种族中立的方程式过渡,有望在不影响准确性的情况下提高公平性。然而,这些变化的影响因临床情况而异,因此需要仔细识别和减轻偏倚。未来的努力应侧重于纳入不同的数据来源,捕捉真正的社会和生物健康决定因素,实施偏见检测和公平战略,确保透明的报告,并与不同的社区接触。对学生和学员进行关于种族作为一种社会政治结构的教育,对于提高认识和实现卫生公平也很重要。为了使临床算法公平有效地为所有患者服务,需要在现实世界环境中定期监测、评估和改进方法。
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
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信