Algorithmic individual fairness and healthcare: a scoping review
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2025

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Joshua W Anderson1, Shyam Visweswaran1,2
1Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States.
Objectives:
Statistical and artificial intelligence algorithms are increasingly being developed for use in healthcare. These algorithms may reflect biases that magnify disparities in clinical care, and there is a growing need for understanding how algorithmic biases can be mitigated in pursuit of algorithmic fairness. We conducted a scoping review on algorithmic individual fairness (IF) to understand the current state of research in the metrics and methods developed to achieve IF and their applications in healthcare.
Materials And Methods:
We searched four databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and medRxiv for algorithmic IF metrics, algorithmic bias mitigation, and healthcare applications. Our search was restricted to articles published between January 2013 and November 2024. We identified 2498 articles through database searches and seven additional articles, of which 32 articles were included in the review. Data from the selected articles were extracted, and the findings were synthesized.
Results:
Based on the 32 articles in the review, we identified several themes, including philosophical underpinnings of fairness, IF metrics, mitigation methods for achieving IF, implications of achieving IF on group fairness and vice versa, and applications of IF in healthcare.
Discussion:
We find that research of IF is still in their early stages, particularly in healthcare, as evidenced by the limited number of relevant articles published between 2013 and 2024. While healthcare applications of IF remain sparse, growth has been steady in number of publications since 2012. The limitations of group fairness further emphasize the need for alternative approaches like IF. However, IF itself is not without challenges, including subjective definitions of similarity and potential bias encoding from data-driven methods. These findings, coupled with the limitations of the review process, underscore the need for more comprehensive research on the evolution of IF metrics and definitions to advance this promising field.
Conclusion:
While significant work has been done on algorithmic IF in recent years, the definition, use, and study of IF remain in their infancy, especially in healthcare. Future research is needed to comprehensively apply and evaluate IF in healthcare.
Related Concept Videos
Issues And Trends In Healthcare Delivery System
Cost Containment
Payment for healthcare services has historically promoted adoption of costly and often unnecessary or inefficient...
Ethical Issues
Ethical Concerns in Healthcare:
Standards of Care I
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
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,...
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...

