MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402155817 · doi:10.2196/59811

Perceptions Toward Using Artificial Intelligence and Technology for Asthma Attack Risk Prediction: Qualitative Exploration of Māori Views

2024· article· en· W4402155817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Widana Kankanamge Darsha Jayamini, Farhaan Mirza, Marie-Claire Bidois-Putt, M. Asif Naeem, Amy Hai Yan Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand
KeywordsPerceptionAsthmaArtificial intelligencePsychologyRisk perceptionApplied psychologyComputer scienceData scienceMachine learningMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a significant global health issue, impacting over 500,000 individuals in New Zealand and disproportionately affecting Māori communities in New Zealand, who experience worse asthma symptoms and attacks. Digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models, are increasingly popular for asthma risk prediction. However, these AI models may underrepresent minority ethnic groups and introduce bias, potentially exacerbating disparities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the views and perceptions that Māori have toward using AI and ML technologies for asthma self-management, identify key considerations for developing asthma attack risk prediction models, and ensure Māori are represented in ML models without worsening existing health inequities. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 Māori participants with asthma, 3 male and 17 female, aged 18-76 years. All the interviews were conducted one-on-one, except for 1 interview, which was conducted with 2 participants. Altogether, 10 web-based interviews were conducted, while the rest were kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face). A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the themes. Further, sentiment analysis was carried out to identify the sentiments using a pretrained Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model. RESULTS: We identified four key themes: (1) concerns about AI use, (2) interest in using technology to support asthma, (3) desired characteristics of AI-based systems, and (4) experience with asthma management and opportunities for technology to improve care. AI was relatively unfamiliar to many participants, and some of them expressed concerns about whether AI technology could be trusted, kanohi ki te kanohi interaction, and inadequate knowledge of AI and technology. These concerns are exacerbated by the Māori experience of colonization. Most of the participants were interested in using technology to support their asthma management, and we gained insights into user preferences regarding computer-based health care applications. Participants discussed their experiences, highlighting problems with health care quality and limited access to resources. They also mentioned the factors that trigger their asthma control level. CONCLUSIONS: The exploration revealed that there is a need for greater information about AI and technology for Māori communities and a need to address trust issues relating to the use of technology. Expectations in relation to computer-based applications for health purposes were expressed. The research outcomes will inform future investigations on AI and technology to enhance the health of people with asthma, in particular those designed for Indigenous populations in New Zealand.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.690
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.059 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→