Ethical Applications of Artificial Intelligence: Evidence From Health Research on Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread agreement that artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant benefits for individuals and society at large, there are also serious challenges to overcome with respect to its governance. Recent policymaking has focused on establishing principles for the trustworthy use of AI. Adhering to these principles is especially important for ensuring that the development and application of AI raises economic and social welfare, including among vulnerable groups and veterans. OBJECTIVE: We explore the newly developed principles around trustworthy AI and how they can be readily applied at scale to vulnerable groups that are potentially less likely to benefit from technological advances. METHODS: Using the US Department of Veterans Affairs as a case study, we explore the principles of trustworthy AI that are of particular interest for vulnerable groups and veterans. RESULTS: We focus on three principles: (1) designing, developing, acquiring, and using AI so that the benefits of its use significantly outweigh the risks and the risks are assessed and managed; (2) ensuring that the application of AI occurs in well-defined domains and is accurate, effective, and fit for the intended purposes; and (3) ensuring that the operations and outcomes of AI applications are sufficiently interpretable and understandable by all subject matter experts, users, and others. CONCLUSIONS: These principles and applications apply more generally to vulnerable groups, and adherence to them can allow the VA and other organizations to continue modernizing their technology governance, leveraging the gains of AI while simultaneously managing its risks.
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 | 0.128 | 0.464 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".