Participant flow diagrams for health equity in AI.

Selection bias can arise through many aspects of a study, including recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, input-level exclusion and outcome-level exclusion, and often reflects the underrepresentation of populations historically disadvantaged in medical research. The effects of selection bias can be further amplified when non-representative samples are used in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications to construct clinical algorithms. Building on the "Data Cards" initiative for transparency in AI research, we advocate for the addition of a participant flow diagram for AI studies detailing relevant sociodemographic and/or clinical characteristics of excluded participants across study phases, with the goal of identifying potential algorithmic biases before their clinical implementation. We include both a model for this flow diagram as well as a brief case study explaining how it could be implemented in practice. Through standardized reporting of participant flow diagrams, we aim to better identify potential inequities embedded in AI applications, facilitating more reliable and equitable clinical algorithms.

Ophthalmology Optical Coherence Tomography Databases for Artificial Intelligence Algorithm: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Imaging plays a pivotal role in eye assessment. With the introduction of advanced machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI), the focus has shifted to imaging datasets in ophthalmology. While disparities and health inequalities hidden within data are well-documented, the ophthalmology field faces specific challenges to the creation and maintenance of datasets. Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is useful for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal pathologies, making it valuable for AI applications. This review aims to identify and compare the landscape of publicly available optical coherence tomography databases for AI applications. METHODS: We conducted a literature review on OCT and AI articles with publicly accessible datasets, using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The review retrieved 183 articles, and after full-text analysis, 50 articles were included. From the included articles were identified 8 publicly available OCT datasets, focusing on patient demographics and clinical details for thorough assessment and comparison. RESULTS: The resulting datasets encompass 154,313 images collected from Spectralis, Cirrus HD, Topcon 3D, and Bioptigen devices. These datasets included normal exams, age-related macular degeneration, and diabetic maculopathy, among others. Comprehensive demographic information is available in one dataset and the USA is the most represented population. DISCUSSION: Current publicly available OCT databases for AI applications exhibit limitations, stemming from their non-representative nature and the lack of comprehensive demographic information. Limited datasets hamper research and equitable AI development. To promote equitable AI algorithmic development in ophthalmology, there is a need for the creation and dissemination of more representative datasets.

Critical appraisal of machine learning prognostic models for acute pancreatitis: protocol for a systematic review.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an acute inflammatory disorder that is common, costly, and is increasing in incidence worldwide with over 300,000 hospitalizations occurring yearly in the United States alone. As its course and outcomes vary widely, a critical knowledge gap in the field has been a lack of accurate prognostic tools to forecast AP patients' outcomes. Despite several published studies in the last three decades, the predictive performance of published prognostic models has been found to be suboptimal. Recently, non-regression machine learning models (ML) have garnered intense interest in medicine for their potential for better predictive performance. Each year, an increasing number of AP models are being published. However, their methodologic quality relating to transparent reporting and risk of bias in study design has never been systematically appraised. Therefore, through collaboration between a group of clinicians and data scientists with appropriate content expertise, we will perform a systematic review of papers published between January 2021 and December 2023 containing artificial intelligence prognostic models in AP. To systematically assess these studies, the authors will leverage the CHARMS checklist, PROBAST tool for risk of bias assessment, and the most current version of the TRIPOD-AI. (Research Registry ( http://www.reviewregistry1727 .).

A scientometric analysis of fairness in health AI literature.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are central components of today's medical environment. The fairness of AI, i.e. the ability of AI to be free from bias, has repeatedly come into question. This study investigates the diversity of members of academia whose scholarship poses questions about the fairness of AI. The articles that combine the topics of fairness, artificial intelligence, and medicine were selected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Embase using keywords. Eligibility and data extraction from the articles were done manually and cross-checked by another author for accuracy. Articles were selected for further analysis, cleaned, and organized in Microsoft Excel; spatial diagrams were generated using Public Tableau. Additional graphs were generated using Matplotlib and Seaborn. Linear and logistic regressions were conducted using Python to measure the relationship between funding status, number of citations, and the gender demographics of the authorship team. We identified 375 eligible publications, including research and review articles concerning AI and fairness in healthcare. Analysis of the bibliographic data revealed that there is an overrepresentation of authors that are white, male, and are from high-income countries, especially in the roles of first and last author. Additionally, analysis showed that papers whose authors are based in higher-income countries were more likely to be cited more often and published in higher impact journals. These findings highlight the lack of diversity among the authors in the AI fairness community whose work gains the largest readership, potentially compromising the very impartiality that the AI fairness community is working towards.

A scoping review of the landscape of health-related open datasets in Latin America.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to revolutionize healthcare, but their successful translation into clinical practice has been limited. One crucial factor is the data used to train these algorithms, which must be representative of the population. However, most healthcare databases are derived from high-income countries, leading to non-representative models and potentially exacerbating health inequities. This review focuses on the landscape of health-related open datasets in Latin America, aiming to identify existing datasets, examine data-sharing frameworks, techniques, platforms, and formats, and identify best practices in Latin America. The review found 61 datasets from 23 countries, with the DATASUS dataset from Brazil contributing to the majority of articles. The analysis revealed a dearth of datasets created by the authors themselves, indicating a reliance on existing open datasets. The findings underscore the importance of promoting open data in Latin America. We provide recommendations for enhancing data sharing in the region.

A new tool for evaluating health equity in academic journals; the Diversity Factor.

Current methods to evaluate a journal's impact rely on the downstream citation mapping used to generate the Impact Factor. This approach is a fragile metric prone to being skewed by outlier values and does not speak to a researcher's contribution to furthering health outcomes for all populations. Therefore, we propose the implementation of a Diversity Factor to fulfill this need and supplement the current metrics. It is composed of four key elements: dataset properties, author country, author gender and departmental affiliation. Due to the significance of each individual element, they should be assessed independently of each other as opposed to being combined into a simplified score to be optimized. Herein, we discuss the necessity of such metrics, provide a framework to build upon, evaluate the current landscape through the lens of each key element and publish the findings on a freely available website that enables further evaluation. The OpenAlex database was used to extract the metadata of all papers published from 2000 until August 2022, and Natural language processing was used to identify individual elements. Features were then displayed individually on a static dashboard developed using TableauPublic, which is available at www.equitablescience.com. In total, 130,721 papers were identified from 7,462 journals where significant underrepresentation of LMIC and Female authors was demonstrated. These findings are pervasive and show no positive correlation with the Journal's Impact Factor. The systematic collection of the Diversity Factor concept would allow for more detailed analysis, highlight gaps in knowledge, and reflect confidence in the translation of related research. Conversion of this metric to an active pipeline would account for the fact that how we define those most at risk will change over time and quantify responses to particular initiatives. Therefore, continuous measurement of outcomes across groups and those investigating those outcomes will never lose importance. Moving forward, we encourage further revision and improvement by diverse author groups in order to better refine this concept.