Fairboard: a quantitative framework for equity assessment of healthcare models
Despite there now being more than 1,000 FDA-authorised AI medical devices, formal equity assessments -- whether model performance is uniform across patient subgroups -- are rare. Here, we evaluate the equity of 18 open-source brain tumour segmentation models across 648 glioma patients from two independent datasets (n = 11,664 model inferences) along distinct univariate, Bayesian multivariate, spatial, and representational dimensions. We find that patient identity consistently explains more perfo
Record details
Published: 30 March 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness · Healthcare
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
FairLLaVA: Fairness-Aware Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Large Vision-Language Assistants
arXiv · 27 March 2026
Explainable Speech Emotion Recognition: Weighted Attribute Fairness to Model Demographic Contributions to Social Bias
arXiv · 26 March 2026
AD-CARE: A Guideline-grounded, Modality-agnostic LLM Agent for Real-world Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis with Multi-cohort Assessment, Fairness Analysis, and Reader Study
arXiv · 26 March 2026
A Scoping Review of LLM-as-a-Judge in Healthcare and the MedJUDGE Framework
arXiv · 3 April 2026
The Imbalanced User-AI Relationships as an Ethical Failure of Front-End Design in Healthcare AI
arXiv · 24 March 2026
MIRAGE: The Illusion of Visual Understanding
arXiv · 23 March 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (30 March 2026), “Fairboard: a quantitative framework for equity assessment of healthcare models,” evidence record 6596, https://ethics.ai/record/6596 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.