Machine Learning and Public Health: Identifying and Mitigating Algorithmic Bias through a Systematic Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14669v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 13:24:11 GMT
• Title: Machine Learning and Public Health: Identifying and Mitigating Algorithmic Bias through a Systematic Review
• Authors: Sara Altamirano, Arjan Vreeken, Sennay Ghebreab,
• Abstract summary: Algorithmic bias in machine learning (ML) may inadvertently reinforce existing health disparities.<n>We present a systematic literature review of algorithmic bias identification, discussion, and reporting in Dutch public health ML research from 2021 to 2025.
• Score: 3.4137115855910767
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning (ML) promises to revolutionize public health through improved surveillance, risk stratification, and resource allocation. However, without systematic attention to algorithmic bias, ML may inadvertently reinforce existing health disparities. We present a systematic literature review of algorithmic bias identification, discussion, and reporting in Dutch public health ML research from 2021 to 2025. To this end, we developed the Risk of Algorithmic Bias Assessment Tool (RABAT) by integrating elements from established frameworks (Cochrane Risk of Bias, PROBAST, Microsoft Responsible AI checklist) and applied it to 35 peer-reviewed studies. Our analysis reveals pervasive gaps: although data sampling and missing data practices are well documented, most studies omit explicit fairness framing, subgroup analyses, and transparent discussion of potential harms. In response, we introduce a four-stage fairness-oriented framework called ACAR (Awareness, Conceptualization, Application, Reporting), with guiding questions derived from our systematic literature review to help researchers address fairness across the ML lifecycle. We conclude with actionable recommendations for public health ML practitioners to consistently consider algorithmic bias and foster transparency, ensuring that algorithmic innovations advance health equity rather than undermine it.

Related papers

• Whither Bias Goes, I Will Go: An Integrative, Systematic Review of Algorithmic Bias Mitigation [1.0470286407954037]
  Concerns have been raised that machine learning (ML) models may be biased and perpetuate or exacerbate inequality. We present a four-stage model of developing ML assessments and applying bias mitigation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T02:32:14Z)
• Exploring Bias and Prediction Metrics to Characterise the Fairness of Machine Learning for Equity-Centered Public Health Decision-Making: A Narrative Review [2.7757900645956943]
  There is a lack of comprehensive understanding of algorithmic bias, systematic errors in predicted population health outcomes, resulting from the public health application of Machine Learning. The review will help formalize the evaluation framework for ML on public health from an equity perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T14:47:10Z)
• A survey of recent methods for addressing AI fairness and bias in biomedicine [48.46929081146017]
  Artificial intelligence systems may perpetuate social inequities or demonstrate biases, such as those based on race or gender. We surveyed recent publications on different debiasing methods in the fields of biomedical natural language processing (NLP) or computer vision (CV) We performed a literature search on PubMed, ACM digital library, and IEEE Xplore of relevant articles published between January 2018 and December 2023 using multiple combinations of keywords. We reviewed other potential methods from the general domain that could be applied to biomedicine to address bias and improve fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T06:38:46Z)
• AI in Supply Chain Risk Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis [0.0]
  This study examines 1,903 articles from Google Scholar and Web of Science, with 54 studies selected through PRISMA guidelines.<n>Our findings reveal that ML models, including Random Forest, XGBoost, and hybrid approaches, significantly enhance risk prediction accuracy and adaptability in post-pandemic contexts.<n>The study underscores the necessity of dynamic strategies, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continuous model evaluation to address challenges such as data quality and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T17:47:51Z)
• Unmasking Bias in AI: A Systematic Review of Bias Detection and Mitigation Strategies in Electronic Health Record-based Models [6.300835344100545]
  Leveraging artificial intelligence in conjunction with electronic health records holds transformative potential to improve healthcare. Yet, addressing bias in AI, which risks worsening healthcare disparities, cannot be overlooked. This study reviews methods to detect and mitigate diverse forms of bias in AI models developed using EHR data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T18:29:15Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Fairness in Machine Learning meets with Equity in Healthcare [6.842248432925292]
  This study proposes an artificial intelligence framework for identifying and mitigating biases in data and models. A case study is presented to demonstrate how systematic biases in data can lead to amplified biases in model predictions. Future research aims to test and validate the proposed ML framework in real-world clinical settings to evaluate its impact on promoting health equity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T14:25:34Z)
• Auditing Algorithmic Fairness in Machine Learning for Health with Severity-Based LOGAN [70.76142503046782]
  We propose supplementing machine learning-based (ML) healthcare tools for bias with SLOGAN, an automatic tool for capturing local biases in a clinical prediction task. LOGAN adapts an existing tool, LOcal Group biAs detectioN, by contextualizing group bias detection in patient illness severity and past medical history. On average, SLOGAN identifies larger fairness disparities in over 75% of patient groups than LOGAN while maintaining clustering quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T08:04:12Z)
• ImDrug: A Benchmark for Deep Imbalanced Learning in AI-aided Drug Discovery [79.08833067391093]
  Real-world pharmaceutical datasets often exhibit highly imbalanced distribution. We introduce ImDrug, a benchmark with an open-source Python library which consists of 4 imbalance settings, 11 AI-ready datasets, 54 learning tasks and 16 baseline algorithms tailored for imbalanced learning. It provides an accessible and customizable testbed for problems and solutions spanning a broad spectrum of the drug discovery pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-16T13:35:57Z)
• Fair Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Review [90.22219142430146]
  We analyze the intersection of fairness in machine learning and healthcare disparities. We provide a critical review of the associated fairness metrics from a machine learning standpoint. We propose several new research directions that hold promise for developing ethical and equitable ML applications in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-29T04:32:10Z)
• Anatomizing Bias in Facial Analysis [86.79402670904338]
  Existing facial analysis systems have been shown to yield biased results against certain demographic subgroups. It has become imperative to ensure that these systems do not discriminate based on gender, identity, or skin tone of individuals. This has led to research in the identification and mitigation of bias in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T09:51:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.