Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias.

Objectives: 1.1Biases 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. Methods: 1.2We 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. Results: 1.3Systematic 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. Conclusions: 1.4Machine 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.

Participant flow diagrams for health equity in AI.

Selection bias can arise through many aspects of a study, including recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, input-level exclusion and outcome-level exclusion, and often reflects the underrepresentation of populations historically disadvantaged in medical research. The effects of selection bias can be further amplified when non-representative samples are used in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications to construct clinical algorithms. Building on the "Data Cards" initiative for transparency in AI research, we advocate for the addition of a participant flow diagram for AI studies detailing relevant sociodemographic and/or clinical characteristics of excluded participants across study phases, with the goal of identifying potential algorithmic biases before their clinical implementation. We include both a model for this flow diagram as well as a brief case study explaining how it could be implemented in practice. Through standardized reporting of participant flow diagrams, we aim to better identify potential inequities embedded in AI applications, facilitating more reliable and equitable clinical algorithms.

A scoping review of the landscape of health-related open datasets in Latin America.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to revolutionize healthcare, but their successful translation into clinical practice has been limited. One crucial factor is the data used to train these algorithms, which must be representative of the population. However, most healthcare databases are derived from high-income countries, leading to non-representative models and potentially exacerbating health inequities. This review focuses on the landscape of health-related open datasets in Latin America, aiming to identify existing datasets, examine data-sharing frameworks, techniques, platforms, and formats, and identify best practices in Latin America. The review found 61 datasets from 23 countries, with the DATASUS dataset from Brazil contributing to the majority of articles. The analysis revealed a dearth of datasets created by the authors themselves, indicating a reliance on existing open datasets. The findings underscore the importance of promoting open data in Latin America. We provide recommendations for enhancing data sharing in the region.

Strategies and solutions to address Digital Determinants of Health (DDOH) across underinvested communities.

Healthcare has long struggled to improve services through technology without further widening health disparities. With the significant expansion of digital health, a group of healthcare professionals and scholars from across the globe are proposing the official usage of the term "Digital Determinants of Health" (DDOH) to explicitly call out the relationship between technology, healthcare, and equity. This is the final paper in a series published in PLOS Digital Health that seeks to understand and summarize current knowledge of the strategies and solutions that help to mitigate the negative effects of DDOH for underinvested communities. Through a search of English-language Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar articles published since 2010, 345 articles were identified that discussed the application of digital health technology among underinvested communities. A group of 8 reviewers assessed 132 articles selected at random for the mention of solutions that minimize differences in DDOH. Solutions were then organized by categories of policy; design and development; implementation and adoption; and evaluation and ongoing monitoring. The data were then assessed by category and the findings summarized. The reviewers also looked for common themes across the solutions and evidence of effectiveness. From this limited scoping review, the authors found numerous solutions mentioned across the papers for addressing DDOH and many common themes emerged regardless of the specific community or digital health technology under review. There was notably less information on solutions regarding ongoing evaluation and monitoring which corresponded with a lack of research evidence regarding effectiveness. The findings directionally suggest that universal strategies and solutions can be developed to address DDOH independent of the specific community under focus. With the need for the further development of DDOH measures, we also provide a framework for DDOH assessment.

Access to Palliative Care for Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The utilization of palliative care (PC) in patients with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is not well understood. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was utilized to examine the use of PC in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with IPF. The NIS captures 20% of all US inpatient hospitalizations and is weighted to estimate 95% of all inpatient care. RESULTS: A total of 55 208 382 hospital admissions from the 2006 to 2012 NIS samples were examined. There were 21 808 patients identified with pulmonary fibrosis, of which 3166 underwent mechanical ventilation and were included in the analysis. Of the 3166 patients in the main cohort, 408 (12.9%) had an encounter with PC, whereas 2758 (87.1%) did not. After multivariate logistic regression modeling, variables associated with increased access to PC referral were age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.03, P < .01), treatment in an urban teaching hospital (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.27-3.58, P < .01), and do-not-resuscitate status (OR: 9.86, 95% CI: 7.48-13.00, P < .01). Factors associated with less access to PC were Hispanic race (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41-0.99, P = .04) and missing race (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.79, P < .01), with white race serving as the reference. The use of PC has increased almost 10-fold from 2.3% in 2006 to 21.6% in 2012 ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: The utilization of PC in patients with IPF who undergo MV has increased dramatically between 2006 and 2012.