Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2025

Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
Availability of information needed to evaluate algorithmic fairness - A systematic review of publicly accessible
Nicholas Fong1, Erica Langnas2, Tyler Law3
1Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States; School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Background:
Machine learning (ML) may improve clinical decision-making in critical care settings, but intrinsic biases in datasets can introduce bias into predictive models. This study aims to determine if publicly available critical care datasets provide relevant information to identify historically marginalized populations.
Method:
We conducted a review to identify the manuscripts that report the training/validation of ML algorithms using publicly accessible critical care electronic medical record (EMR) datasets. The datasets were reviewed to determine if the following 12 variables were available: age, sex, gender identity, race and/or ethnicity, self-identification as an indigenous person, payor, primary language, religion, place of residence, education, occupation, and income.
Results:
7 publicly available databases were identified. Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) reports information on 7 of the 12 variables of interest, Sistema de Informação de Vigilância Epidemiológica da Gripe (SIVEP-Gripe) on 7, COVID-19 Mexican Open Repository on 4, and eICU on 4. Other datasets report information on 2 or fewer variables. All 7 databases included information about sex and age. Four databases (57%) included information about whether a patient identified as native or indigenous. Only 3 (43%) included data about race and/or ethnicity. Two databases (29%) included information about residence, and one (14%) included information about payor, language, and religion. One database (14%) included information about education and patient occupation. No databases included information on gender identity and income.
Conclusion:
This review demonstrates that critical care publicly available data used to train AI algorithms do not include enough information to properly look for intrinsic bias and fairness issues towards historically marginalized populations.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Ethical Issues
Ethical Concerns in Healthcare:
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Kaplan-Meier Approach

