Context is all you need: A causal framework for governing bias in clinical AI
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.
Authors
- Eyal Klang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4567-3108)
- Mahmud Omar (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0438-0827)
- Girish N. Nadkarni (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6319-4314)
- Yiftach Barash (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7242-1328)
- Alon Gorenshtein (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7542-8608)
Institutions
- Mount Sinai Health System (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Mount Sinai Medical Center (US)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- PLOS Digital Health
- Published
- 2026-11-06
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001819
- Primary Topic
- Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00
Funders
- Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance
- National Institutes of Health