Privacy, bias and the clinical use of facial recognition technology: A survey of genetics professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial recognition technology (FRT) has been adopted as a precision medicine tool. The medical genetics field highlights both the clinical potential and privacy risks of this technology, putting the discipline at the forefront of a new digital privacy debate. Investigating how geneticists perceive the privacy concerns surrounding FRT can help shape the evolution and regulation of the field, and provide lessons for medicine and research more broadly. Five hundred and sixty-two genetics clinicians and researchers were approached to fill out a survey, 105 responded, and 80% of these completed. The survey consisted of 48 questions covering demographics, relationship to new technologies, views on privacy, views on FRT, and views on regulation. Genetics professionals generally placed a high value on privacy, although specific views differed, were context-specific, and covaried with demographic factors. Most respondents (88%) agreed that privacy is a basic human right, but only 37% placed greater weight on it than other values such as freedom of speech. Most respondents (80%) supported FRT use in genetics, but not necessarily for broader clinical use. A sizeable percentage (39%) were unaware of FRT's lower accuracy rates in marginalized communities and of the mental health effects of privacy violations (62%), but most (76% and 75%, respectively) expressed concern when informed. Overall, women and those who self-identified as politically progressive were more concerned about the lower accuracy rates in marginalized groups (88% vs. 64% and 83% vs. 63%, respectively). Younger geneticists were more wary than older geneticists about using FRT in genetics (28% compared to 56% "strongly" supported such use). There was an overall preference for more regulation, but respondents had low confidence in governments' or technology companies' ability to accomplish this. Privacy views are nuanced and context-dependent. Support for privacy was high but not absolute, and clear deficits existed in awareness of crucial FRT-related discrimination potential and mental health impacts. Education and professional guidelines may help to evolve views and practices within the field.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".