Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Fairness in Machine Learning meets with Equity in Healthcare

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.07041 v2 pith:TQPILJSJ submitted 2023-05-11 cs.LG

Fairness in Machine Learning meets with Equity in Healthcare

classification cs.LG
keywords biaseshealthcaredatalearningmachineequityfairnessframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the growing utilization of machine learning in healthcare, there is increasing potential to enhance healthcare outcomes. However, this also brings the risk of perpetuating biases in data and model design that can harm certain demographic groups based on factors such as age, gender, and race. This study proposes an artificial intelligence framework, grounded in software engineering principles, for identifying and mitigating biases in data and models while ensuring fairness in healthcare settings. A case study is presented to demonstrate how systematic biases in data can lead to amplified biases in model predictions, and machine learning methods are suggested to prevent such biases. Future research aims to test and validate the proposed ML framework in real-world clinical settings to evaluate its impact on promoting health equity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Features to Actions: Explainability in Traditional and Agentic AI Systems

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Attribution explanations that work for static classifiers do not diagnose failures in multi-step AI agents; trace-grounded rubric evaluation does, with state-tracking inconsistency 2.7x more common in failed agent runs.