Ethical sourcing in the context of health data supply chain management: a value sensitive design approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.229 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 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".