Abstract:Background While artificial intelligence (AI) offers possibilities of advanced clinical prediction and decision-making in healthcare, models trained on relatively homogeneous datasets, and populations poorly-representative of underlying diversity, limits generalisability and risks biased AI-based decisions. Here, we describe the landscape of AI in clinical medicine to delineate population and data-source disparities. Methods We performed a scoping review of clinical papers published in PubMed in 2019 using AI techniques. We assessed differences in dataset country source, clinical specialty, and author nationality, sex, and expertise. A manually tagged subsample of PubMed articles was used to train a model, leveraging transfer-learning techniques (building upon an existing BioBERT model) to predict eligibility for inclusion (original, human, clinical AI literature). Of all eligible articles, database country source and clinical specialty were manually labelled. A BioBERT-based model predicted first/last author expertise. Author nationality was determined using corresponding affiliated institution information using Entrez Direct. And first/last author sex was evaluated using the Gendarize.io API. Results Our search yielded 30,576 articles, of which 7,314 (23.9%) were eligible for further analysis. Most databases came from the US (40.8%) and China (13.7%). Radiology was the most represented clinical specialty (40.4%), followed by pathology (9.1%). Authors were primarily from either China (24.0%) or the US (18.4%). First and last authors were predominately data experts (i.e., statisticians) (59.6% and 53.9% respectively) rather than clinicians. And the majority of first/last authors were male (74.1%). Interpretation U.S. and Chinese datasets and authors were disproportionately overrepresented in clinical AI, and almost all of the top 10 databases and author nationalities were from high income countries (HICs). AI techniques were most commonly employed for image-rich specialties, and authors were predominantly male, with non-clinical backgrounds. Development of technological infrastructure in data-poor regions, and diligence in external validation and model re-calibration prior to clinical implementation in the short-term, are crucial in ensuring clinical AI is meaningful for broader populations, and to avoid perpetuating global health inequity.

Medical imaging data science competitions should report dataset demographics and evaluate for bias

The Limits of Fair Medical Imaging AI In The Wild

Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects

Toward fairness in artificial intelligence for medical image analysis: identification and mitigation of potential biases in the roadmap from data collection to model deployment

Gender imbalance in medical imaging datasets produces biased classifiers for computer-aided diagnosis

Bias and Non-Diversity of Big Data in Artificial Intelligence: Focus on Retinal Diseases

Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging

Demographic Bias of Expert-Level Vision-Language Foundation Models in Medical Imaging

Underdiagnosis Bias of Chest Radiograph Diagnostic AI can be Decomposed and Mitigated via Dataset Bias Attributions

Machine Learning and Bias in Medical Imaging: Opportunities and Challenges

Acquisition parameters influence AI recognition of race in chest x-rays and mitigating these factors reduces underdiagnosis bias

Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations

An AI-Guided Data Centric Strategy to Detect and Mitigate Biases in Healthcare Datasets

Bias in AI-based models for medical applications: challenges and mitigation strategies

Risk of Training Diagnostic Algorithms on Data with Demographic Bias

The Role of the ACR Data Science Institute in Advancing Health Equity in Radiology

AI-Driven Healthcare: A Survey on Ensuring Fairness and Mitigating Bias

An investigation into the impact of deep learning model choice on sex and race bias in cardiac MR segmentation

Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities—A global review