Evidence mapPaperPMID 40658719Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review.

Ting Wang, Elham Emami, Dana Jafarpour, Raymond Tolentino, Genevieve Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ting WangDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2613-5462
Elham EmamiFaculty of Dental Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Dana JafarpourDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Raymond TolentinoDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Genevieve GoreSchulich Library of Physical Science, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-2683
Samira Abbasgholizadeh RahimiDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3781-1360

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lack of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles in the lifecycle of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare is a growing concern. Despite its importance, there is still a gap in understanding the initiatives undertaken to address this issue. This review aims to explore what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI studies in healthcare. We followed the scoping review framework by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive search was conducted until April 29, 2022, across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, and SCI-EXPANDED. Only research studies in which the integration of EDI in AI was the primary focus were included. Non-research articles were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. To synthesize the findings, we conducted a thematic analysis and used a narrative description. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for reporting scoping reviews. The search yielded 10,664 records, with 42 studies included. Most studies were conducted on the American population. Previous research has shown that AI models improve when socio-demographic factors such as gender and race are considered. Despite frameworks for EDI integration, no comprehensive approach systematically applies EDI principles in AI model development. Additionally, the integration of EDI into the AI implementation phase remains under-explored, and the representation of EDI within AI teams has been overlooked. This review reports on what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI technologies in healthcare. We used a thorough search strategy and rigorous methodology, though we acknowledge limitations such as language and publication bias. A comprehensive framework is needed to ensure that EDI principles are considered throughout the AI lifecycle. Future research could focus on strategies to reduce algorithmic bias, assess the long-term impact of EDI integration, and explore policy implications to ensure that AI technologies are ethical, responsible, and beneficial for all.

Identifiers

PMID40658719
PMCPMC12258586

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.