Artificial intelligence and social accountability in the Canadian health care landscape: A rapid literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Situated within a larger project entitled "Exploring the Need for a Uniquely Different Approach in Northern Ontario: A Study of Socially Accountable Artificial Intelligence," this rapid review provides a broad look into how social accountability as an equity-oriented health policy strategy is guiding artificial intelligence (AI) across the Canadian health care landscape, particularly for marginalized regions and populations. This review synthesizes existing literature to answer the question: How is AI present and impacted by social accountability across the health care landscape in Canada? METHODOLOGY: A multidisciplinary expert panel with experience in diverse health care roles and computer sciences was assembled from multiple institutions in Northern Ontario to guide the study design and research team. A search strategy was developed that broadly reflected the concepts of social accountability, AI and health care in Canada. EMBASE and Medline databases were searched for articles, which were reviewed for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Search results, a description of the studies, and a thematic analysis of the included studies were reported as the primary outcome. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search strategy yielded 679 articles of which 36 relevant studies were included. There were no studies identified that were guided by a comprehensive, equity-oriented social accountability strategy. Three major themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) designing equity into AI; (2) policies and regulations for AI; and (3) the inclusion of community voices in the implementation of AI in health care. Across the 3 main themes, equity, marginalized populations, and the need for community and partner engagement were frequently referenced, which are key concepts of a social accountability strategy. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that unless there is a course correction, AI in the Canadian health care landscape will worsen the digital divide and health inequity. Social accountability as an equity-oriented strategy for AI could catalyze many of the changes required to prevent a worsening of the digital divide caused by the AI revolution in health care in Canada and should raise concerns for other global contexts.
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 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.054 | 0.074 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".