MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415507166 · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooaf101

Ethical sourcing in the context of health data supply chain management: a value sensitive design approach

2025· article· en· W4415507166 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMIA Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSupply chainContext (archaeology)Health dataValue (mathematics)Public healthData collectionSupply chain managementData integrity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The Bridge2AI program is establishing rules of practice for creating ethically sourced health data repositories to support the effective use of ML/AI in biomedical and behavioral research. Given the initially undefined nature of ethically sourced data, this work concurrently developed definitions and guidelines alongside repository creation, grounded in a practical, operational framework. Materials and Methods: A Value Sensitive Design (VSD) approach was used to explore ethical tensions across stages of health data repository development. The conceptual investigation drew from supply chain management (SCM) processes to (1) identify actors who would interact with or be affected by the data repository use and outcomes; (2) determine what values to consider (ie, traceability accountability, security); and (3) analyze and document value trade-offs (ie, balancing risks of harm to improvements in healthcare). This SCM framework provides operational guidance for managing complex, multi-source data flows with embedded bias mitigation strategies. Results: This conceptual investigation identified the actors, values, and tensions that influence ethical sourcing when creating a health data repository. The SCM steps provide a scaffolding to support ethical sourcing across the pre-model stages of health data repository development. Ethical sourcing includes documenting data provenance, articulating expectations for experts, and practices for ensuring data privacy, equity, and public benefit. Challenges include risks of ethics washing and highlight the need for transparent, value-driven practices. Discussion: Integrating VSD with SCM frameworks enables operationalization of ethical values, improving data integrity, mitigating biases, and enhancing trust. This approach highlights how foundational decisions influence repository quality and AI/ML system usability, addressing provenance, traceability, redundancy, and risk management central to ethical data sourcing. Conclusion: To create authentic, impactful health data repositories that serve public health goals, organizations must prioritize transparency, accountability, and operational frameworks like SCM that comprehensively address the complexities and risks inherent in data stewardship.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.563
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.022 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it