Mitigating the risk of artificial intelligence bias in cardiovascular care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital health technologies can generate data that can be used to train artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, which have been particularly transformative in cardiovascular health-care delivery. However, digital and health-care data repositories that are used to train AI algorithms can introduce bias when data are homogeneous and health-care processes are inequitable. AI bias can also be introduced during algorithm development, testing, implementation, and post-implementation processes. The consequences of AI algorithmic bias can be considerable, including missed diagnoses, misclassification of disease, incorrect risk prediction, and inappropriate treatment recommendations. This bias can disproportionately affect marginalised demographic groups. In this Series paper, we provide a brief overview of AI applications in cardiovascular health care, discuss stages of algorithm development and associated sources of bias, and provide examples of harm from biased algorithms. We propose strategies that can be applied during the training, testing, and implementation of AI algorithms to mitigate bias so that all those at risk for or living with cardiovascular disease might benefit equally from AI.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it