Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles in the lifecycle of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare is a growing concern. Despite its importance, there is still a gap in understanding the initiatives undertaken to address this issue. This review aims to explore what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI studies in healthcare. We followed the scoping review framework by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive search was conducted until April 29, 2022, across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, and SCI-EXPANDED. Only research studies in which the integration of EDI in AI was the primary focus were included. Non-research articles were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. To synthesize the findings, we conducted a thematic analysis and used a narrative description. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for reporting scoping reviews. The search yielded 10,664 records, with 42 studies included. Most studies were conducted on the American population. Previous research has shown that AI models improve when socio-demographic factors such as gender and race are considered. Despite frameworks for EDI integration, no comprehensive approach systematically applies EDI principles in AI model development. Additionally, the integration of EDI into the AI implementation phase remains under-explored, and the representation of EDI within AI teams has been overlooked. This review reports on what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI technologies in healthcare. We used a thorough search strategy and rigorous methodology, though we acknowledge limitations such as language and publication bias. A comprehensive framework is needed to ensure that EDI principles are considered throughout the AI lifecycle. Future research could focus on strategies to reduce algorithmic bias, assess the long-term impact of EDI integration, and explore policy implications to ensure that AI technologies are ethical, responsible, and beneficial for all.
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 | 0.113 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".