AI and disability: A systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance life experiences and present challenges for people with disabilities. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the relationship between AI and disability, exploring the potential benefits and challenges of using AI for people with disabilities. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted using eight online databases; 45 scholarly articles from the last 5 years were identified and selected for thematic analysis. Results: The review’s findings revealed AI’s potential to enhance healthcare; however, it showed a high prevalence of a narrow medical model of disability and an ableist perspective in AI research. This raises concerns about the perpetuation of biases and discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the development and deployment of AI technologies. Conclusion: We recommend shifting towards a social model of disability, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, addressing AI bias and discrimination, prioritizing privacy and security in AI development, focusing on accessibility and usability, investing in education and training, and advocating for robust policy and regulatory frameworks. The review emphasizes the urgent need for further research to ensure that AI benefits all members of society equitably and that future AI systems are designed with inclusivity and accessibility as core principles.
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 | 0.018 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".