Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias

View ORCID ProfileOriel Perets, View ORCID ProfileEmanuela Stagno, View ORCID ProfileEyal Ben Yehuda, View ORCID ProfileMegan McNichol, View ORCID ProfileLeo Anthony Celi, View ORCID ProfileNadav Rappoport, View ORCID ProfileMatilda Dorotic
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.09.24305594
Oriel Perets
1Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Oriel Perets
  • For correspondence: orielpe@post.bgu.ac.il
Emanuela Stagno
2University of Sussex Business School, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emanuela Stagno
Eyal Ben Yehuda
1Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eyal Ben Yehuda
Megan McNichol
3Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Megan McNichol
Leo Anthony Celi
4Harvard–MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Leo Anthony Celi
Nadav Rappoport
1Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nadav Rappoport
Matilda Dorotic
5BI Norwegian Business School, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matilda Dorotic
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

1 ABSTRACT

Objectives Biases inherent in electronic health records (EHRs), and therefore in medical artificial intelligence (AI) models may significantly exacerbate health inequities and challenge the adoption of ethical and responsible AI in healthcare. Biases arise from multiple sources, some of which are not as documented in the literature. Biases are encoded in how the data has been collected and labeled, by implicit and unconscious biases of clinicians, or by the tools used for data processing. These biases and their encoding in healthcare records undermine the reliability of such data and bias clinical judgments and medical outcomes. Moreover, when healthcare records are used to build data-driven solutions, the biases are further exacerbated, resulting in systems that perpetuate biases and induce healthcare disparities. This literature scoping review aims to categorize the main sources of biases inherent in EHRs.

Methods We queried PubMed and Web of Science on January 19th, 2023, for peer-reviewed sources in English, published between 2016 and 2023, using the PRISMA approach to stepwise scoping of the literature. To select the papers that empirically analyze bias in EHR, from the initial yield of 430 papers, 27 duplicates were removed, and 403 studies were screened for eligibility. 196 articles were removed after the title and abstract screening, and 96 articles were excluded after the full-text review resulting in a final selection of 116 articles.

Results Systematic categorizations of diverse sources of bias are scarce in the literature, while the effects of separate studies are often convoluted and methodologically contestable. Our categorization of published empirical evidence identified the six main sources of bias: a) bias arising from past clinical trials; b) data-related biases arising from missing, incomplete information or poor labeling of data; human-related bias induced by c) implicit clinician bias, d) referral and admission bias; e) diagnosis or risk disparities bias and finally, (f) biases in machinery and algorithms.

Conclusions Machine learning and data-driven solutions can potentially transform healthcare delivery, but not without limitations. The core inputs in the systems (data and human factors) currently contain several sources of bias that are poorly documented and analyzed for remedies. The current evidence heavily focuses on data-related biases, while other sources are less often analyzed or anecdotal. However, these different sources of biases add to one another exponentially. Therefore, to understand the issues holistically we need to explore these diverse sources of bias. While racial biases in EHR have been often documented, other sources of biases have been less frequently investigated and documented (e.g. gender-related biases, sexual orientation discrimination, socially induced biases, and implicit, often unconscious, human-related cognitive biases). Moreover, some existing studies lack causal evidence, illustrating the different prevalences of disease across groups, which does not per se prove the causality. Our review shows that data-, human- and machine biases are prevalent in healthcare and they significantly impact healthcare outcomes and judgments and exacerbate disparities and differential treatment. Understanding how diverse biases affect AI systems and recommendations is critical. We suggest that researchers and medical personnel should develop safeguards and adopt data-driven solutions with a “bias-in-mind” approach. More empirical evidence is needed to tease out the effects of different sources of bias on health outcomes.

CCS Concepts • Computing methodologies → Machine learning; Machine learning approaches; • Applied computing → Health care information systems; Health informatics; • Social and professional topics → Personal health records; Medical records.

ACM Reference Format Oriel Perets, Emanuela Stagno, Eyal Ben Yehuda, Megan McNichol, Leo Anthony Celi, Nadav Rappoport, and Matilda Dorotic. 2024. Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias. 1, 1 (April 2024), 24 pages. https://doi.org/XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://osf.io/skdm7

Funding Statement

LAC is funded by the National Institute of Health through NIBIB R01 EB017205.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Authors’ addresses: Oriel Perets, orielpe{at}post.bgu.ac.il, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 1212, Beer Sheva, Israel, 43017-6221; Emanuela Stagno, University of Sussex Business School, Sussex, UK; Eyal Ben Yehuda, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel; Megan McNichol, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Leo Anthony Celi, Harvard–MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology, Boston, MA, USA; Nadav Rappoport, nadavrap{at}bgu.ac.il, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel, Senior Author; Matilda Dorotic, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway, Senior Author.

Data Availability

A scoping review, all articles are available in the bibliography to this manuscript

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 12, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias
Oriel Perets, Emanuela Stagno, Eyal Ben Yehuda, Megan McNichol, Leo Anthony Celi, Nadav Rappoport, Matilda Dorotic
medRxiv 2024.04.09.24305594; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.09.24305594
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias
Oriel Perets, Emanuela Stagno, Eyal Ben Yehuda, Megan McNichol, Leo Anthony Celi, Nadav Rappoport, Matilda Dorotic
medRxiv 2024.04.09.24305594; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.09.24305594

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (403)
  • Allergy and Immunology (712)
  • Anesthesia (207)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2970)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (336)
  • Dermatology (253)
  • Emergency Medicine (446)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1050)
  • Epidemiology (12817)
  • Forensic Medicine (12)
  • Gastroenterology (830)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4622)
  • Geriatric Medicine (423)
  • Health Economics (732)
  • Health Informatics (2943)
  • Health Policy (1073)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1092)
  • Hematology (393)
  • HIV/AIDS (933)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14145)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (854)
  • Medical Education (430)
  • Medical Ethics (116)
  • Nephrology (476)
  • Neurology (4412)
  • Nursing (238)
  • Nutrition (652)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (817)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (739)
  • Oncology (2296)
  • Ophthalmology (652)
  • Orthopedics (260)
  • Otolaryngology (327)
  • Pain Medicine (282)
  • Palliative Medicine (84)
  • Pathology (503)
  • Pediatrics (1200)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (510)
  • Primary Care Research (503)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3803)
  • Public and Global Health (7008)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1545)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (920)
  • Respiratory Medicine (921)
  • Rheumatology (444)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (446)
  • Sports Medicine (386)
  • Surgery (491)
  • Toxicology (60)
  • Transplantation (212)
  • Urology (185)