Bias in machine learning applications to address non-communicable diseases at a population-level: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in population and public health to support epidemiological studies, surveillance, and evaluation. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to identify studies that use ML in population health, with a focus on its use in non-communicable diseases (NCDs). We also examine potential algorithmic biases in model design, training, and implementation, as well as efforts to mitigate these biases. METHODS: We searched the peer-reviewed, indexed literature using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, Inspec, Web of Science's Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and the Emerging Sources Citation Index, up to March 2022. RESULTS: The search identified 27 310 studies and 65 were included. Study aims were separated into algorithm comparison (n = 13, 20%) or disease modelling for population-health-related outputs (n = 52, 80%). We extracted data on NCD type, data sources, technical approach, possible algorithmic bias, and jurisdiction. Type 2 diabetes was the most studied NCD. The most common use of ML was for risk modeling. Mitigating bias was not extensively addressed, with most methods focused on mitigating sex-related bias. CONCLUSION: This review examines current applications of ML in NCDs, highlighting potential biases and strategies for mitigation. Future research should focus on communicable diseases and the transferability of ML models in low and middle-income settings. Our findings can guide the development of guidelines for the equitable use of ML to improve population health outcomes.
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 | 0.166 | 0.507 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".