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

Institutions

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

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Context is all you need: A causal framework for governing bias in clinical AI

Eyal Klang, Mahmud Omar, Girish N. Nadkarni, Yiftach Barash et al.
3 links
PLOS Digital Health
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Context is all you need: A causal framework for governing bias in clinical AI

Eyal Klang, Mahmud Omar, Girish N. Nadkarni, Yiftach Barash, Alon Gorenshtein
article en

Abstract

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.

PLOS Digital HealthVol. 5(11)
Mount Sinai Health System (US), Harvard University (US), Mount Sinai Medical Center (US), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance, National Institutes of Health
Good health and well-being, Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon