Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming modern healthcare, enhancing diagnostic accuracy, streamlining operations and enabling personalised care. However, its potential is at risk when bias permeates AI systems, undermining fairness, equity and equality. Bias, whether introduced through data, algorithms or deployment, can lead to systemic disparities that disproportionately affect underrepresented populations. Recognising and mitigating bias throughout the AI model lifecycle is essential to ensure these tools improve healthcare for all rather than deepen existing inequalities.
Origins of Bias in Healthcare AI
Bias in healthcare AI originates from multiple sources, often rooted in human behaviour and institutional practices. Implicit bias, embedded in subconscious assumptions, influences data collection and model design, perpetuating healthcare disparities. Systemic bias reflects broader societal inequities, such as underfunding in underserved communities, which can be inadvertently encoded into AI systems. Confirmation bias, where developers favour data supporting pre-existing beliefs, further skews model design and output. Historical training data may contain outdated perspectives, leading to temporal biases such as concept shift or training-serving skew, where AI fails to adapt to evolving practices or populations.
Data collection processes also introduce significant bias. Representation bias, caused by a lack of diversity in training data, limits the generalisability of models. Selection, sampling and participation biases arise when certain groups are systematically over- or under-represented, skewing outcomes. Measurement bias occurs due to inconsistencies in data acquisition across institutions, altering the representation of variables and degrading model reliability. Together, these human and data-driven factors create a complex landscape where bias infiltrates the foundations of healthcare AI.
Lifecycle-Specific Biases and Challenges
Bias can manifest at every stage of the AI model lifecycle. During the conception phase, vague research questions or non-inclusive development teams may overlook critical demographic factors. This phase requires alignment with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) principles and a commitment to assessing the potential implications of model design on various groups.
In the data collection phase, generating representative datasets is a formidable challenge. Although initiatives like Open Science Practices and STANDING Together promote inclusivity, data sparsity and inconsistent demographic capture persist. Standardising collection methods is resource-intensive and retrospective datasets often reflect historical inequalities.
Pre-processing presents risks such as aggregation bias, where uniform handling of data erases important subgroup distinctions. Feature selection bias, especially when proxy variables replace more appropriate inputs, can perpetuate systemic inequities. In the development phase, algorithmic choices affect fairness and explainability. Techniques like counterfactual testing and red teaming can uncover hidden biases, but are often limited by data availability or technical complexity. While federated and adversarial learning can improve generalisability and equity, they may also reduce model interpretability or introduce fairness-accuracy trade-offs.
Must Read: The Role of Policy Change in Advancing Health Equity
Clinical deployment introduces new risks, such as automation bias, where clinicians over-rely on AI recommendations or dismissal bias, where frequent alerts cause users to ignore important signals. Feedback loop bias may reinforce incorrect predictions if AI outputs influence future training data. These challenges require robust human-in-the-loop systems and clear communication of model performance across demographic subgroups.
Mitigation Strategies for Fair and Equitable AI
Systematic mitigation strategies must be implemented throughout the AI lifecycle to promote fairness and equity. During model conception, teams must engage in bias-aware planning, ensuring diverse representation and clear documentation of DEI commitments. Ongoing education and critical evaluation are essential to prevent confirmation and systemic biases from shaping early decisions.
In the data collection phase, efforts should focus on inclusivity, drawing from multiple sources and prospectively validating datasets. Addressing underrepresentation may involve oversampling, targeted recruitment or data augmentation techniques. These strategies, however, must be carefully managed to avoid introducing synthetic distortions or reinforcing existing patterns.
Pre-processing should involve meticulous attention to missing data, feature engineering and subgroup balance. Developers must assess the impact of sensitive variables and consider alternative input features to avoid reliance on proxies that mask underlying disparities. During algorithm development, fairness metrics such as demographic parity, equal opportunity and causal fairness provide quantitative tools to assess bias. Stratified validation and techniques like cost-sensitive learning or transfer learning can enhance performance across diverse groups.
For deployment, structured pre-implementation testing and transparent reporting of model characteristics are vital. Tools such as saliency maps and SHAP values can improve user trust, though they must be interpreted cautiously. Post-deployment, continuous monitoring is essential. Institutions must track model performance across patient demographics, recalibrate algorithms when necessary and maintain oversight of local changes that may not be reflected in external datasets. Frameworks such as the FDA’s real-world performance monitoring and DECIDE-AI guidelines support these activities but require institutional investment and coordination.
Bias in healthcare AI threatens to undermine the very improvements it promises. Ensuring fairness, equity and equality demands proactive, lifecycle-wide vigilance from researchers, developers, clinicians and regulators alike. By embedding mitigation strategies into every phase—from model conception to post-deployment surveillance—stakeholders can build systems that serve all populations with integrity. In doing so, AI can truly become a force for bridging healthcare gaps, supporting better outcomes for every patient.
Source: npg digital medicine
Image Credit: iStock
