Towards Equitable AI Interventions for People Who Use Drugs: Key Areas That Require Ethical Investment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been growing investment in artificial intelligence (AI) interventions to combat the opioid-driven overdose epidemic plaguing North America. Although the evidence for the use of technology and AI in medicine is mounting, there are a number of ethical, social, and political implications that need to be considered when designing AI interventions. In this commentary, we describe 2 key areas that will require ethical deliberation in order to ensure that AI is being applied ethically with socially vulnerable populations such as people who use drugs: (1) perpetuation of biases in data and (2) consent. We offer ways forward to guide and provide opportunities for interventionists to develop substance use-related AI technologies that account for the inherent biases embedded within conventional data systems. This includes a discussion of how other data generation techniques (eg, qualitative and community-based approaches) can be integrated within AI intervention development efforts to mitigate the limitations of relying on electronic health record data. Finally, we emphasize the need to involve people who use drugs as stakeholders in all phases of AI intervention development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.287 | 0.405 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".