Exploring the Use and Implications of AI in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across the health sector and has garnered significant attention within sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) due to polarizing views on its opportunities to advance care and the heightened risks and implications it brings to people's well-being and bodily autonomy. As the fields of AI and SRHR evolve, clarity is needed to bridge our understanding of how AI is being used within this historically politicized health area and raise visibility on the critical issues that can facilitate its responsible and meaningful use. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review to synthesize empirical studies that focus on the intersection of AI and SRHR. The review aims to identify the characteristics of AI systems and tools applied within SRHR, regarding health domains, intended purpose, target users, AI data life cycle, and evidence on benefits and harms. METHODS: The scoping review follows the standard methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria comprise the use of AI systems and tools in sexual and reproductive health and clear methodology describing either quantitative or qualitative approaches, including program descriptions. Studies will be excluded if they focus entirely on digital interventions that do not explicitly use AI systems and tools, are about robotics or nonhuman subjects, or are commentaries. We will not exclude articles based on geographic location, language, or publication date. The study will present the uses of AI across sexual and reproductive health domains, the intended purpose of the AI system and tools, and maturity within the AI life cycle. Outcome measures will be reported on the effect, accuracy, acceptability, resource use, and feasibility of studies that have deployed and evaluated AI systems and tools. Ethical and legal considerations, as well as findings from qualitative studies, will be synthesized through a narrative thematic analysis. We will use the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) format for the publication of the findings. RESULTS: The database searches resulted in 12,793 records when the searches were conducted in October 2023. Screening is underway, and the analysis is expected to be completed by July 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The findings will provide key insights on usage patterns and evidence on the use of AI in SRHR, as well as convey key ethical, safety, and legal considerations. The outcomes of this scoping review are contributing to a technical brief developed by the World Health Organization and will guide future research and practice in this highly charged area of work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/ma4d9; https://osf.io/ma4d9. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/53888.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,122 | 0,169 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,018 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,022 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,054 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».