Using Artificial Intelligence for High-Volume Identification of Silicosis and Tuberculosis: A Bio-Ethics Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being increasingly applied, considerable distrust about introducing "disruptive" technologies persists. Intrinsic and contextual factors influencing where and how such innovations are introduced therefore require careful scrutiny to ensure that health equity is promoted. To illustrate one such critical approach, we describe and appraise an AI application - the development of computer assisted diagnosis (CAD) to support more efficient adjudication of compensation claims from former gold miners with occupational lung disease in Southern Africa. In doing so, we apply a bio-ethical lens that considers the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice and add explicability as a core principle. We draw on the AI literature, our research on CAD validation and process efficiency, as well as apprehensions of users and stakeholders. Issues of concern included AI accuracy, biased training of AI systems, data privacy, impact on human skill development, transparency and accountability in AI use, as well as intellectual property ownership. We discuss ways in which each of these potential obstacles to successful use of CAD could be mitigated. We conclude that efforts to overcoming technical challenges in applying AI must be accompanied from the onset by attention to ensuring its ethical use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".