Evaluation of AIML + HDR—A Course to Enhance Data Science Workforce Capacity for Hispanic Biomedical Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) facilitate the creation of revolutionary medical techniques. Unfortunately, biases in current AI and ML approaches are perpetuating minority health inequity. One of the strategies to solve this problem is training a diverse workforce. For this reason, we created the course "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning applied to Health Disparities Research (AIML + HDR)" which applied general Data Science (DS) approaches to health disparities research with an emphasis on Hispanic populations. Some technical topics covered included the Jupyter Notebook Framework, coding with R and Python to manipulate data, and ML libraries to create predictive models. Some health disparities topics covered included Electronic Health Records, Social Determinants of Health, and Bias in Data. As a result, the course was taught to 34 selected Hispanic participants and evaluated by a survey on a Likert scale (0-4). The surveys showed high satisfaction (more than 80% of participants agreed) regarding the course organization, activities, and covered topics. The students strongly agreed that the activities were relevant to the course and promoted their learning (3.71 ± 0.21). The students strongly agreed that the course was helpful for their professional development (3.76 ± 0.18). The open question was quantitatively analyzed and showed that seventy-five percent of the comments received from the participants confirmed their great satisfaction.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".