Democratising artificial intelligence in healthcare: community-driven approaches for ethical solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) has ushered in a new era of possibilities in healthcare, ranging from clinical task automation to disease detection. AI algorithms have the potential to analyse medical data, enhance diagnostic accuracy, personalise treatment plans and predict patient outcomes among other possibilities. With a surge in AI's popularity, its developments are outpacing policy and regulatory frameworks, leading to concerns about ethical considerations and collaborative development. Healthcare faces its own ethical challenges, including biased datasets, under-representation and inequitable access to resources, all contributing to mistrust in medical systems. To address these issues in the context of AI healthcare solutions and prevent perpetuating existing inequities, it is crucial to involve communities and stakeholders in the AI lifecycle. This article discusses four community-driven approaches for co-developing ethical AI healthcare solutions, including understanding and prioritising needs, defining a shared language, promoting mutual learning and co-creation, and democratising AI. These approaches emphasise bottom-up decision-making to reflect and centre impacted communities' needs and values. These collaborative approaches provide actionable considerations for creating equitable AI solutions in healthcare, fostering a more just and effective healthcare system that serves patient and community needs.
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 | 0.077 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| 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".