Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42342882›Full record

ReviewCommunications medicine2026

Identifying and mitigating bias in multiple aspects of modern clinical research.

Geerthy Thambiraj, Antonis A Armoundas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Geerthy ThambirajMassachusetts General Hospital, Cardiovascular Research Center, Harvard University Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Antonis A ArmoundasMassachusetts General Hospital, Cardiovascular Research Center, Harvard University Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. [email protected].ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5006-1547

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical research, bias is a systematic error that creates a difference between observed and true values. The increasing use of large datasets and artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine necessitates a renewed focus on how such errors can be introduced and propagated.This educational primer provides a consolidated framework of the three primary types of bias selection, information, and confounding/analytical. We synthesize these concepts for an interdisciplinary audience of clinicians and data scientists, using illustrative examples from both traditional clinical trials and modern, data-intensive research. Bias can arise at every stage of the research lifecycle: design, conduct, analysis, reporting, and dissemination. We illustrate how classic issues, such as selection bias (systematic differences between those included and those eligible/targeted, thus distorting effect estimates), manifest in data and how modern analytical methods can introduce novel forms of error if not carefully managed. A shared understanding of bias is essential for effective collaboration between clinical and data science teams. This primer offers a practical conceptual map to help these teams proactively identify, mitigate, and transparently report on potential sources of bias, ultimately fostering more robust and equitable clinical evidence.

Identifiers

PMID42342882
PMCPMC13294366

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.