Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical AI systems can produce different recommendations when a patient’s race, income, housing status, or gender identity changes, but a differential alone does not establish unjustified bias. What separates a clinically justified differential from an unjustified one is not its size or direction but its origin: whether the feature acts through a clinically justified pathway, or marks how patients of that group have been treated. That distinction is causal, and a model trained only to detect statistical association records that a feature carries information but never why. Existing evidence does not establish reliable recovery of this adjudication inside that model; we therefore argue for explicit causal and normative supervision, whether supplied by an external layer, built into training, or both. We set out a six-criterion rubric, four approaches to implementing it, and a two-sided evaluation reporting preserved clinical sensitivity alongside reduced bias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gorenshtein et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: