Bias in clinical AI isn’t theoretical. It’s measurable, consequential, and often hidden until you look for it.

I’ve been involved in bias assessments for three different clinical AI implementations over the past eighteen months. What I’ve learned is that bias detection is less about sophisticated statistics and more about asking the right questions, then measuring consistently.

What Bias Actually Looks Like in Clinical AI

When we talk about bias in clinical AI, we’re talking about systematic differences in how AI performs across different patient groups. Not random errors—systematic ones.

Consider a chest X-ray AI that performs well overall but has notably lower sensitivity for detecting certain conditions in older female patients. The overall performance metrics look acceptable. The bias becomes visible only when you disaggregate.

Or a risk prediction model trained on historical data that perpetuates existing patterns of care that disadvantaged certain populations. The AI isn’t creating new bias—it’s encoding and automating existing bias.

These aren’t edge cases. They’re common patterns that appear when you look carefully.

Why Standard Performance Metrics Miss Bias

The performance metrics vendors provide—sensitivity, specificity, AUROC—are typically aggregate measures. They tell you how the AI performs across the entire population in the validation study.

They don’t tell you:

• How performance varies by age, sex, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status
• Whether the validation population resembles your patient population
• How performance differs across clinical subgroups relevant to your context
• Whether performance degrades for patients with multiple comorbidities

I’ve reviewed AI products with impressive headline metrics that showed concerning performance disparities when properly stratified. The vendors weren’t hiding anything—they just weren’t measuring it. Working with Team400 on one project, we found performance differences of over 15% between demographic groups that the standard metrics completely masked.

Practical Bias Detection for Australian Health Services

Here’s what I recommend organisations actually do:

Before Implementation

Demand stratified performance data. Ask vendors for performance metrics broken down by:

• Age groups (particularly elderly patients)
• Sex
• Ethnicity/ancestry (recognising data limitations)
• Common comorbidities
• Clinical settings (ED vs ward vs outpatient)

If vendors can’t or won’t provide this, that’s a significant gap.

Assess training data representation. What patient populations were included in training data? What was the demographic composition? Were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients represented? Were Australian patients included at all?

Identify high-risk applications. Some applications have greater bias risk than others. Triage and prioritisation systems, risk prediction models, and diagnostic aids in conditions with known demographic variation deserve extra scrutiny.

During Implementation

Plan for local validation. Before deploying widely, run the AI on a representative sample of your patients and assess performance across subgroups. This takes time and resources but reveals issues before they affect patient care.

Engage clinical experts. Clinicians often know where demographic-related clinical variation exists. A dermatology AI might perform differently on different skin types. A cardiac risk model might have known limitations for certain populations. Clinical knowledge guides where to look.

Document your baseline. What’s the current situation without AI? You need this to understand whether AI improves or worsens any disparities.

Ongoing Monitoring

Establish routine stratified performance reviews. Monthly or quarterly, review AI performance broken down by relevant demographic categories. This requires capturing demographic data linked to AI recommendations and outcomes.

Set thresholds for acceptable variation. Decide in advance what performance difference across groups is acceptable. A 2% difference in sensitivity between age groups might be tolerable; a 15% difference probably isn’t. Define this before you start measuring.

Create escalation pathways. When concerning patterns emerge, who reviews them? What actions might be taken? Who has authority to restrict or stop AI use?

The Data Challenge

Bias detection requires demographic data linked to clinical data and AI outputs. In Australian healthcare, this data is often:

• Incomplete (ethnicity data particularly)
• Inconsistent across systems
• Not structured for analysis
• Subject to privacy restrictions

These are real barriers. They don’t excuse organisations from trying, but they explain why bias detection is harder in practice than in theory.

Some practical approaches:

• Use available demographic fields even if incomplete
• Consider proxy measures where direct data is missing
• Aggregate across time to build sufficient sample sizes
• Partner with research teams who have expertise in these methods

TGA and Bias

The TGA’s framework for AI medical devices doesn’t include explicit bias testing requirements, but sponsors are required to demonstrate that devices are safe and perform as claimed. If an AI performs materially worse for certain patient groups, that’s relevant to safety and performance claims.

I expect bias-related requirements to become more explicit over time, consistent with international regulatory trends. Organisations that build bias detection capability now will be ahead of requirements.

Working with External Partners

Building internal capability for bias detection takes time. Organisations working with AI consultants Sydney or similar partners on clinical AI implementations should include bias assessment in project scope. This isn’t optional add-on work—it’s core to responsible implementation.

The partners doing this work well bring both technical capability (statistical analysis of AI performance) and clinical expertise (understanding which disparities matter and why).

What I’ve Seen Go Wrong

A few patterns from implementations that struggled with bias:

Waiting until problems emerged. One organisation only started measuring stratified performance after a clinician noticed the AI seemed less helpful for certain patients. By then, the AI had been running for months. Proactive monitoring would have identified this earlier.

Insufficient sample sizes. Trying to detect performance differences with too few patients in each subgroup. You need enough data for meaningful statistical comparison.

Ignoring inconvenient findings. Finding a performance disparity and deciding to proceed anyway without addressing it or even documenting the decision. This creates risk and undermines trust.

Treating it as a one-time check. Bias can emerge or worsen over time as patient populations shift or AI systems update. Ongoing monitoring matters.

A Framework That Works

For organisations serious about this, I recommend:

1. Pre-deployment assessment. Vendor data review, local validation on representative sample, clinical expert input.

2. Initial monitoring period. Intensive monitoring for first 3-6 months with monthly stratified performance review.

3. Ongoing surveillance. Quarterly stratified performance analysis, annual comprehensive review.

4. Response protocols. Defined thresholds, escalation pathways, and authority to act on concerning findings.

5. Governance integration. Bias monitoring embedded in clinical governance structures, not siloed as a technical concern.

This takes resources. It’s worth it. The alternative is discovering bias problems after they’ve affected patients, which is clinically, ethically, and reputationally worse.

The Bigger Picture

Bias detection in clinical AI is really about ensuring AI delivers on its promise to improve care for all patients, not just some. It’s about the same equity principles that should guide all healthcare decisions.

The technical aspects—statistics, data structures, monitoring systems—serve this broader purpose. We’re not just measuring algorithms; we’re trying to ensure that technology doesn’t entrench or amplify existing healthcare disparities.

That’s work worth doing carefully, even when it’s difficult.

---

Dr. Rebecca Liu is a health informatics specialist and former Chief Clinical Information Officer. She advises healthcare organisations on clinical AI strategy and implementation.