Background: Racial bias is a key concern regarding the development, validation, and implementation of machine learning (ML) models in clinical settings. Despite the potential of bias to propagate health disparities, racial bias in clinical ML has yet to be thoroughly examined and best practices for bias mitigation remain unclear. Objective: Our objective was to perform a scoping review to characterize the methods by which the racial bias of ML has been assessed and describe strategies that may be used to enhance algorithmic fairness in clinical ML. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases, as well as Google Scholar, identified 635 records, of which 12 studies were included. Results: Applications of ML were varied and involved diagnosis, outcome prediction, and clinical score prediction performed on data sets including images, diagnostic studies, clinical text, and clinical variables. Of the 12 studies, 1 (8%) described a model in routine clinical use, 2 (17%) examined prospectively validated clinical models, and the remaining 9 (75%) described internally validated models. In addition, 8 (67%) studies concluded that racial bias was present, 2 (17%) concluded that it was not, and 2 (17%) assessed the implementation of bias mitigation strategies without comparison to a baseline model. Fairness metrics used to assess algorithmic racial bias were inconsistent. The most commonly observed metrics were equal opportunity difference (5/12, 42%), accuracy (4/12, 25%), and disparate impact (2/12, 17%). All 8 (67%) studies that implemented methods for mitigation of racial bias successfully increased fairness, as measured by the authors’ chosen metrics. Preprocessing methods of bias mitigation were most commonly used across all studies that implemented them. Conclusions: The broad scope of medical ML applications and potential patient harms demand an increased emphasis on evaluation and mitigation of racial bias in clinical ML. However, the adoption of algorithmic fairness principles in medicine remains inconsistent and is limited by poor data availability and ML model reporting. We recommend that researchers and journal editors emphasize standardized reporting and data availability in medical ML studies to improve transparency and facilitate evaluation for racial bias.

Malignant brain tumors pose a substantial burden on morbidity and mortality. As clinical data collection improves, along with the capacity to analyze it, novel predictive clinical tools may improve prognosis prediction. Deep learning (DL) holds promise for integrating clinical data of various modalities. A systematic review of the DL-based prognostication of gliomas was performed using the Embase (Elsevier), PubMed MEDLINE (National library of Medicine), and Scopus (Elsevier) databases, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All included studies focused on the prognostication of gliomas, and predicted overall survival (13 studies, 81%), overall survival as well as genotype (2 studies, 12.5%), and response to immunotherapy (1 study, 6.2%). Multimodal analyses were varied, with 6 studies (37.5%) combining MRI with clinical data; 6 studies (37.5%) integrating MRI with histologic, clinical, and biomarker data; 3 studies (18.8%) combining MRI with genomic data; and 1 study (6.2%) combining histologic imaging with clinical data. Studies that compared multimodal models to unimodal-only models demonstrated improved predictive performance. The risk of bias was mixed, most commonly due to inconsistent methodological reporting. Overall, the use of multimodal data in DL assessments of gliomas leads to a more accurate overall survival prediction. However, due to data limitations and a lack of transparency in model and code reporting, the full extent of multimodal DL as a resource for brain tumor patients has not yet been realized.

Deep learning (DL) is a powerful machine learning technique that has increasingly been used to predict surgical outcomes. However, the large quantity of data required and lack of model interpretability represent substantial barriers to the validity and reproducibility of DL models. The objective of this study was to systematically review the characteristics of DL studies involving neurosurgical outcome prediction and to assess their bias and reporting quality. Literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases identified 1949 records of which 35 studies were included. Of these, 32 (91%) developed and validated a DL model while 3 (9%) validated a pre-existing model. The most commonly represented subspecialty areas were oncology (16 of 35, 46%), spine (8 of 35, 23%), and vascular (6 of 35, 17%). Risk of bias was low in 18 studies (51%), unclear in 5 (14%), and high in 12 (34%), most commonly because of data quality deficiencies. Adherence to transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis reporting standards was low, with a median of 12 transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis items (39%) per study not reported. Model transparency was severely limited because code was provided in only 3 studies (9%) and final models in 2 (6%). With the exception of public databases, no study data sets were readily available. No studies described DL models as ready for clinical use. The use of DL for neurosurgical outcome prediction remains nascent. Lack of appropriate data sets poses a major concern for bias. Although studies have demonstrated promising results, greater transparency in model development and reporting is needed to facilitate reproducibility and validation.