Black and Latinx Primary Caregiver Considerations for Developing and Implementing a Machine Learning–Based Model for Detecting Child Abuse and Neglect With Implications for Racial Bias Reduction: Qualitative Interview Study With Primary Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child abuse and neglect, once viewed as a social problem, is now an epidemic. Moreover, health providers agree that existing stereotypes may link racial and social class issues to child abuse. The broad adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in clinical settings offers a new avenue for addressing this epidemic. To reduce racial bias and improve the development, implementation, and outcomes of machine learning (ML)-based models that use EHR data, it is crucial to involve marginalized members of the community in the process. OBJECTIVE: This study elicited Black and Latinx primary caregivers' viewpoints regarding child abuse and neglect while living in underserved communities to highlight considerations for designing an ML-based model for detecting child abuse and neglect in emergency departments (EDs) with implications for racial bias reduction and future interventions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 20 Black and Latinx primary caregivers whose children were cared for at a single pediatric tertiary-care ED to gain insights about child abuse and neglect and their experiences with health providers. RESULTS: Three central themes were developed in the coding process: (1) primary caregivers' perspectives on the definition of child abuse and neglect, (2) primary caregivers' experiences with health providers and medical documentation, and (3) primary caregivers' perceptions of child protective services. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight essential considerations from primary caregivers for developing an ML-based model for detecting child abuse and neglect in ED settings. This includes how to define child abuse and neglect from a primary caregiver lens. Miscommunication between patients and health providers can potentially lead to a misdiagnosis, and therefore, have a negative impact on medical documentation. Additionally, the outcome and application of the ML-based models for detecting abuse and neglect may cause additional harm than expected to the community. Further research is needed to validate these findings and integrate them into creating an ML-based model.
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 | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".