BRSET: A Brazilian Multilabel Ophthalmological Dataset of Retina Fundus Photos.

INTRODUCTION: The Brazilian Multilabel Ophthalmological Dataset (BRSET) addresses the scarcity of publicly available ophthalmological datasets in Latin America. BRSET comprises 16,266 color fundus retinal photos from 8,524 Brazilian patients, aiming to enhance data representativeness, serving as a research and teaching tool. It contains sociodemographic information, enabling investigations into differential model performance across demographic groups. METHODS: Data from three São Paulo outpatient centers yielded demographic and medical information from electronic records, including nationality, age, sex, clinical history, insulin use, and duration of diabetes diagnosis. A retinal specialist labeled images for anatomical features (optic disc, blood vessels, macula), quality control (focus, illumination, image field, artifacts), and pathologies (e.g., diabetic retinopathy). Diabetic retinopathy was graded using International Clinic Diabetic Retinopathy and Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Grading. Validation used a ConvNext model trained during 50 epochs using a weighted cross entropy loss to avoid overfitting, with 70% training (20% validation), and 30% testing subsets. Performance metrics included area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and Macro F1-score. Saliency maps were calculated for interpretability. RESULTS: BRSET comprises 65.1% Canon CR2 and 34.9% Nikon NF5050 images. 61.8% of the patients are female, and the average age is 57.6 (± 18.26) years. Diabetic retinopathy affected 15.8% of patients, across a spectrum of disease severity. Anatomically, 20.2% showed abnormal optic discs, 4.9% abnormal blood vessels, and 28.8% abnormal macula. A ConvNext V2 model was trained and evaluated BRSET in four prediction tasks: "binary diabetic retinopathy diagnosis (Normal vs Diabetic Retinopathy)" (AUC: 97, F1: 89); "3 class diabetic retinopathy diagnosis (Normal, Proliferative, Non-Proliferative)" (AUC: 97, F1: 82); "diabetes diagnosis" (AUC: 91, F1: 83); "sex classification" (AUC: 87, F1: 70). DISCUSSION: BRSET is the first multilabel ophthalmological dataset in Brazil and Latin America. It provides an opportunity for investigating model biases by evaluating performance across demographic groups. The model performance of three prediction tasks demonstrates the value of the dataset for external validation and for teaching medical computer vision to learners in Latin America using locally relevant data sources.

Competing interests: digital health and indigenous data sovereignty.

Digital health is increasingly promoting open health data. Although this open approach promises a number of benefits, it also leads to tensions with Indigenous data sovereignty movements led by Indigenous peoples around the world who are asserting control over the use of health data as a part of self-determination. Digital health has a role in improving access to services and delivering improved health outcomes for Indigenous communities. However, we argue that in order to be effective and ethical, it is essential that the field engages more with Indigenous peoples´ rights and interests. We discuss challenges and possible improvements for data acquisition, management, analysis, and integration as they pertain to the health of Indigenous communities around the world.

Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data.

The recent imperative by the National Institutes of Health to share scientific data publicly underscores a significant shift in academic research. Effective as of January 2023, it emphasizes that transparency in data collection and dedicated efforts towards data sharing are prerequisites for translational research, from the lab to the bedside. Given the role of data access in mitigating potential bias in clinical models, we hypothesize that researchers who leverage open-access datasets rather than privately-owned ones are more diverse. In this brief report, we proposed to test this hypothesis in the transdisciplinary and expanding field of artificial intelligence (AI) for critical care. Specifically, we compared the diversity among authors of publications leveraging open datasets, such as the commonly used MIMIC and eICU databases, with that among authors of publications relying exclusively on private datasets, unavailable to other research investigators (e.g., electronic health records from ICU patients accessible only to Mayo Clinic analysts). To measure the extent of author diversity, we characterized gender balance as well as the presence of researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and minority-serving institutions (MSI) located in the United States (US). Our comparative analysis revealed a greater contribution of authors from LMICs and MSIs among researchers leveraging open critical care datasets (treatment group) than among those relying exclusively on private data resources (control group). The participation of women was similar between the two groups, albeit slightly larger in the former. Notably, although over 70% of all articles included at least one author inferred to be a woman, less than 25% had a woman as a first or last author. Importantly, we found that the proportion of authors from LMICs was substantially higher in the treatment than in the control group (10.1% vs. 6.2%, p<0.001), including as first and last authors. Moreover, we found that the proportion of US-based authors affiliated with a MSI was 1.5 times higher among articles in the treatment than in the control group, suggesting that open data resources attract a larger pool of participants from minority groups (8.6% vs. 5.6%, p<0.001). Thus, our study highlights the valuable contribution of the Open Data strategy to underrepresented groups, while also quantifying persisting gender gaps in academic and clinical research at the intersection of computer science and healthcare. In doing so, we hope our work points to the importance of extending open data practices in deliberate and systematic ways.

Lost in Transplantation: Characterizing Racial Gaps in Physician Organ Offer Acceptance.

Background: There are known racial disparities in the organ transplant allocation system in the United States. However, prior work has yet to establish if transplant center decisions on offer acceptance-the final step in the allocation process-contribute to these disparities. Objective: To estimate racial differences in the acceptance of organ offers by transplant center physicians on behalf of their patients. Design: Retrospective cohort analysis using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) on patients who received an offer for a heart, liver, or lung transplant between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020. Setting: Nationwide, waitlist-based. Patients: 32,268 heart transplant candidates, 102,823 liver candidates, and 25,780 lung candidates, all aged 18 or older. Measurements: 1) Association between offer acceptance and two race-based variables: candidate race and donor-candidate race match; 2) association between offer rejection and time to patient mortality. Results: Black race was associated with significantly lower odds of offer acceptance for livers (OR=0.93, CI: 0.88-0.98) and lungs (OR=0.80, CI: 0.73-0.87). Donor-candidate race match was associated with significantly higher odds of offer acceptance for hearts (OR=1.11, CI: 1.06-1.16), livers (OR=1.10, CI: 1.06-1.13), and lungs (OR=1.13, CI: 1.07-1.19). Rejecting an offer was associated with lower survival times for all three organs (heart hazard ratio=1.16, CI: 1.09-1.23; liver HR=1.74, CI: 1.66-1.82; lung HR=1.21, CI: 1.15-1.28). Limitations: Our study analyzed the observational SRTR dataset, which has known limitations. Conclusion: Offer acceptance decisions are associated with inequity in the organ allocation system. Our findings demonstrate the additional barriers that Black patients face in accessing organ transplants and demonstrate the need for standardized practice, continuous distribution policies, and better organ procurement.

Towards long-tailed, multi-label disease classification from chest X-ray: Overview of the CXR-LT challenge.

Many real-world image recognition problems, such as diagnostic medical imaging exams, are "long-tailed" - there are a few common findings followed by many more relatively rare conditions. In chest radiography, diagnosis is both a long-tailed and multi-label problem, as patients often present with multiple findings simultaneously. While researchers have begun to study the problem of long-tailed learning in medical image recognition, few have studied the interaction of label imbalance and label co-occurrence posed by long-tailed, multi-label disease classification. To engage with the research community on this emerging topic, we conducted an open challenge, CXR-LT, on long-tailed, multi-label thorax disease classification from chest X-rays (CXRs). We publicly release a large-scale benchmark dataset of over 350,000 CXRs, each labeled with at least one of 26 clinical findings following a long-tailed distribution. We synthesize common themes of top-performing solutions, providing practical recommendations for long-tailed, multi-label medical image classification. Finally, we use these insights to propose a path forward involving vision-language foundation models for few- and zero-shot disease classification.

A multimodal framework for extraction and fusion of satellite images and public health data.

In low- and middle-income countries, the substantial costs associated with traditional data collection pose an obstacle to facilitating decision-making in the field of public health. Satellite imagery offers a potential solution, but the image extraction and analysis can be costly and requires specialized expertise. We introduce SatelliteBench, a scalable framework for satellite image extraction and vector embeddings generation. We also propose a novel multimodal fusion pipeline that utilizes a series of satellite imagery and metadata. The framework was evaluated generating a dataset with a collection of 12,636 images and embeddings accompanied by comprehensive metadata, from 81 municipalities in Colombia between 2016 and 2018. The dataset was then evaluated in 3 tasks: including dengue case prediction, poverty assessment, and access to education. The performance showcases the versatility and practicality of SatelliteBench, offering a reproducible, accessible and open tool to enhance decision-making in public health.

BOLD: Blood-gas and Oximetry Linked Dataset.

Pulse oximeters measure peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) noninvasively, while the gold standard (SaO2) involves arterial blood gas measurement. There are known racial and ethnic disparities in their performance. BOLD is a dataset that aims to underscore the importance of addressing biases in pulse oximetry accuracy, which disproportionately affect darker-skinned patients. The dataset was created by harmonizing three Electronic Health Record databases (MIMIC-III, MIMIC-IV, eICU-CRD) comprising Intensive Care Unit stays of US patients. Paired SpO2 and SaO2 measurements were time-aligned and combined with various other sociodemographic and parameters to provide a detailed representation of each patient. BOLD includes 49,099 paired measurements, within a 5-minute window and with oxygen saturation levels between 70-100%. Minority racial and ethnic groups account for ~25% of the data - a proportion seldom achieved in previous studies. The codebase is publicly available. Given the prevalent use of pulse oximeters in the hospital and at home, we hope that BOLD will be leveraged to develop debiasing algorithms that can result in more equitable healthcare solutions.

DF-DM: A foundational process model for multimodal data fusion in the artificial intelligence era.

In the big data era, integrating diverse data modalities poses significant challenges, particularly in complex fields like healthcare. This paper introduces a new process model for multimodal Data Fusion for Data Mining, integrating embeddings and the Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining with the existing Data Fusion Information Group model. Our model aims to decrease computational costs, complexity, and bias while improving efficiency and reliability. We also propose "disentangled dense fusion," a novel embedding fusion method designed to optimize mutual information and facilitate dense inter-modality feature interaction, thereby minimizing redundant information. We demonstrate the model's efficacy through three use cases: predicting diabetic retinopathy using retinal images and patient metadata, domestic violence prediction employing satellite imagery, internet, and census data, and identifying clinical and demographic features from radiography images and clinical notes. The model achieved a Macro F1 score of 0.92 in diabetic retinopathy prediction, an R-squared of 0.854 and sMAPE of 24.868 in domestic violence prediction, and a macro AUC of 0.92 and 0.99 for disease prediction and sex classification, respectively, in radiological analysis. These results underscore the Data Fusion for Data Mining model's potential to significantly impact multimodal data processing, promoting its adoption in diverse, resource-constrained settings.

Navigating the Complexities of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Real-World Data Collection for Oncology Pharmacovigilance.

This new editorial discusses the promise and challenges of successful integration of natural language processing methods into electronic health records for timely, robust, and fair oncology pharmacovigilance.

Variation in monitoring: Glucose measurement in the ICU as a case study to preempt spurious correlations.

OBJECTIVE: Health inequities can be influenced by demographic factors such as race and ethnicity, proficiency in English, and biological sex. Disparities may manifest as differential likelihood of testing which correlates directly with the likelihood of an intervention to address an abnormal finding. Our retrospective observational study evaluated the presence of variation in glucose measurements in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: Using the MIMIC-IV database (2008-2019), a single-center, academic referral hospital in Boston (USA), we identified adult patients meeting sepsis-3 criteria. Exclusion criteria were diabetic ketoacidosis, ICU length of stay under 1 day, and unknown race or ethnicity. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess differential likelihoods of glucose measurements on day 1. A negative binomial regression was fitted to assess the frequency of subsequent glucose readings. Analyses were adjusted for relevant clinical confounders, and performed across three disparity proxy axes: race and ethnicity, sex, and English proficiency. RESULTS: We studied 24,927 patients, of which 19.5% represented racial and ethnic minority groups, 42.4% were female, and 9.8% had limited English proficiency. No significant differences were found for glucose measurement on day 1 in the ICU. This pattern was consistent irrespective of the axis of analysis, i.e. race and ethnicity, sex, or English proficiency. Conversely, subsequent measurement frequency revealed potential disparities. Specifically, males (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 - 1.21), patients who identify themselves as Hispanic (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.21), or Black (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.12), and patients being English proficient (IRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.15) had higher chances of subsequent glucose readings. CONCLUSION: We found disparities in ICU glucose measurements among patients with sepsis, albeit the magnitude was small. Variation in disease monitoring is a source of data bias that may lead to spurious correlations when modeling health data.

A Reassessment of Sodium Correction Rates and Hospital Length of Stay Accounting for Admission Diagnosis.

Background Slow correction of severe hyponatremia has been historically recommended due to the risk of rare but catastrophic neurologic events with rapid correction. A recent study challenging this paradigm reported that rapid correction is associated with shorter hospital length of stay, but that study did not control for admission diagnosis. The objective of this study was to determine whether rapid correction is associated with shorter length of stay when controlling for admission diagnosis. Methods This retrospective cohort study is based on the fourth edition of the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care, MIMIC-IV, a deidentified, publicly available clinical research database which includes admissions from 2008-2019. Patients were identified who presented to the hospital with initial sodium <120 mEq/L and were categorized according to total sodium correction achieved in the first day (<6 mEq/L; 6-10 mEq/L; >10 mEq/L). Linear regression was used to assess for an association between correction rate and hospital length of stay, and to determine if this association was significant when controlling for admission diagnosis classifications based on diagnosis related groups (DRGs). Results There were 419 patients with severe hyponatremia (<120 mEq/L) included in this study, of whom 374 survived to discharge. Median [IQR] hospital length of stay was 6 [4, 11] days. In a univariable linear regression, there was a trend towards a significant association between the highest rate of correction (>10 mEq/L) and shorter length of stay, as compared with a moderate rate of correction (coef. -2.764, 95% CI [-5.791, 0.263], p=0.073), but the association was not significant when controlling for admission diagnosis group (coef. -1.561, 95% CI [-4.398, 1.276], p=0.280). There was a significant association in the survivor subset (coef. -3.455, 95% CI [-6.668, -0.242], p=0.035), but it was also not significant when controlling for admission diagnosis group (coef. -2.200, 95% CI [-5.144, 0.743], p=0.142). Conclusions Rapid correction is not associated with shorter length of stay when controlling for admission diagnosis, suggesting that the disease state confounds this association. Findings from prior and future studies reporting this association should not drive clinical decision making if the confounding effect of hospital admission diagnosis and competing risk of death are not fully accounted for.

Can large language models provide secondary reliable opinion on treatment options for dermatological diseases?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the consistency and reliability of medication recommendations provided by ChatGPT for common dermatological conditions, highlighting the potential for ChatGPT to offer second opinions in patient treatment while also delineating possible limitations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we used survey questions in April 2023 for drug recommendations generated by ChatGPT with data from secondary databases, that is, Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and an US medical center database, and validated by dermatologists. The methodology included preprocessing queries, executing them multiple times, and evaluating ChatGPT responses against the databases and dermatologists. The ChatGPT-generated responses were analyzed statistically in a disease-drug matrix, considering disease-medication associations (Q-value) and expert evaluation. RESULTS: ChatGPT achieved a high 98.87% dermatologist approval rate for common dermatological medication recommendations. We evaluated its drug suggestions using the Q-value, showing that human expert validation agreement surpassed Q-value cutoff-based agreement. Varying cutoff values for disease-medication associations, a cutoff of 3 achieved 95.14% accurate prescriptions, 5 yielded 85.42%, and 10 resulted in 72.92%. While ChatGPT offered accurate drug advice, it occasionally included incorrect ATC codes, leading to issues like incorrect drug use and type, nonexistent codes, repeated errors, and incomplete medication codes. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT provides medication recommendations as a second opinion in dermatology treatment, but its reliability and comprehensiveness need refinement for greater accuracy. In the future, integrating a medical domain-specific knowledge base for training and ongoing optimization will enhance the precision of ChatGPT's results.

Does diversity beget diversity? A scientometric analysis of over 150,000 studies and 49,000 authors published in high-impact medical journals between 2007 and 2022.

Background: Health research that significantly impacts global clinical practice and policy is often published in high-impact factor (IF) medical journals. These outlets play a pivotal role in the worldwide dissemination of novel medical knowledge. However, researchers identifying as women and those affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have been largely underrepresented in high-IF journals across multiple fields of medicine. To evaluate disparities in gender and geographical representation among authors who have published in any of five top general medical journals, we conducted scientometric analyses using a large-scale dataset extracted from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and Nature Medicine. Methods: Author metadata from all articles published in the selected journals between 2007 and 2022 were collected using the DimensionsAI platform. The Genderize.io API was then utilized to infer each author's likely gender based on their extracted first name. The World Bank country classification was used to map countries associated with researcher affiliations to the LMIC or the high-income country (HIC) category. We characterized the overall gender and country income category representation across the medical journals. In addition, we computed article-level diversity metrics and contrasted their distributions across the journals. Findings: We studied 151,536 authors across 49,764 articles published in five top medical journals, over a long period spanning 15 years. On average, approximately one-third (33.1%) of the authors of a given paper were inferred to be women; this result was consistent across the journals we studied. Further, 86.6% of the teams were exclusively composed of HIC authors; in contrast, only 3.9% were exclusively composed of LMIC authors. The probability of serving as the first or last author was significantly higher if the author was inferred to be a man (18.1% vs 16.8%, P < .01) or was affiliated with an institution in a HIC (16.9% vs 15.5%, P < .01). Our primary finding reveals that having a diverse team promotes further diversity, within the same dimension (i.e., gender or geography) and across dimensions. Notably, papers with at least one woman among the authors were more likely to also involve at least two LMIC authors (11.7% versus 10.4% in baseline, P < .001; based on inferred gender); conversely, papers with at least one LMIC author were more likely to also involve at least two women (49.4% versus 37.6%, P < .001; based on inferred gender). Conclusion: We provide a scientometric framework to assess authorship diversity. Our research suggests that the inclusiveness of high-impact medical journals is limited in terms of both gender and geography. We advocate for medical journals to adopt policies and practices that promote greater diversity and collaborative research. In addition, our findings offer a first step towards understanding the composition of teams conducting medical research globally and an opportunity for individual authors to reflect on their own collaborative research practices and possibilities to cultivate more diverse partnerships in their work.

Machine learning for healthcare that matters: Reorienting from technical novelty to equitable impact.

Despite significant technical advances in machine learning (ML) over the past several years, the tangible impact of this technology in healthcare has been limited. This is due not only to the particular complexities of healthcare, but also due to structural issues in the machine learning for healthcare (MLHC) community which broadly reward technical novelty over tangible, equitable impact. We structure our work as a healthcare-focused echo of the 2012 paper "Machine Learning that Matters", which highlighted such structural issues in the ML community at large, and offered a series of clearly defined "Impact Challenges" to which the field should orient itself. Drawing on the expertise of a diverse and international group of authors, we engage in a narrative review and examine issues in the research background environment, training processes, evaluation metrics, and deployment protocols which act to limit the real-world applicability of MLHC. Broadly, we seek to distinguish between machine learning ON healthcare data and machine learning FOR healthcare-the former of which sees healthcare as merely a source of interesting technical challenges, and the latter of which regards ML as a tool in service of meeting tangible clinical needs. We offer specific recommendations for a series of stakeholders in the field, from ML researchers and clinicians, to the institutions in which they work, and the governments which regulate their data access.

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 .).