Exploring the Use and Implications of AI in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across the health sector and has garnered significant attention within sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) due to polarizing views on its opportunities to advance care and the heightened risks and implications it brings to people's well-being and bodily autonomy. As the fields of AI and SRHR evolve, clarity is needed to bridge our understanding of how AI is being used within this historically politicized health area and raise visibility on the critical issues that can facilitate its responsible and meaningful use. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review to synthesize empirical studies that focus on the intersection of AI and SRHR. The review aims to identify the characteristics of AI systems and tools applied within SRHR, regarding health domains, intended purpose, target users, AI data life cycle, and evidence on benefits and harms. METHODS: The scoping review follows the standard methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria comprise the use of AI systems and tools in sexual and reproductive health and clear methodology describing either quantitative or qualitative approaches, including program descriptions. Studies will be excluded if they focus entirely on digital interventions that do not explicitly use AI systems and tools, are about robotics or nonhuman subjects, or are commentaries. We will not exclude articles based on geographic location, language, or publication date. The study will present the uses of AI across sexual and reproductive health domains, the intended purpose of the AI system and tools, and maturity within the AI life cycle. Outcome measures will be reported on the effect, accuracy, acceptability, resource use, and feasibility of studies that have deployed and evaluated AI systems and tools. Ethical and legal considerations, as well as findings from qualitative studies, will be synthesized through a narrative thematic analysis. We will use the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) format for the publication of the findings. RESULTS: The database searches resulted in 12,793 records when the searches were conducted in October 2023. Screening is underway, and the analysis is expected to be completed by July 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The findings will provide key insights on usage patterns and evidence on the use of AI in SRHR, as well as convey key ethical, safety, and legal considerations. The outcomes of this scoping review are contributing to a technical brief developed by the World Health Organization and will guide future research and practice in this highly charged area of work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/ma4d9; https://osf.io/ma4d9. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/53888.
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 | 0.122 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.011 |
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".