MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387581015 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000244

Going beyond the means: Exploring the role of bias from digital determinants of health in technologies

2023· review· en· W4387581015 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Laure Charpignon, Adrien Carrel, Yihang Jiang, Teddy Kwaga, Beatriz Cantada, Terry Hyslop, Christopher E. Cox, Krista Haines, Valencia Joyner Koomson, Guillaume Dumas, Michael G. Morley, Jessilyn Dunn, An-Kwok Ian Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesBroad Institute
KeywordsModalitiesDiversity (politics)Scope (computer science)MedicineSelection biasData scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyComputer sciencePathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities. APPROACH: Mechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.242
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.242
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Digital HealthSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207