Reducing Biases towards Minoritized Populations in Medical Curricular Content via Artificial Intelligence for Fairer Health Outcomes
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores using artificial intelligence (AI) to reduce biases towards minoritized populations in medical curricular content, with the goal of improving health outcomes.
- The researchers developed an AI system to analyze medical education materials and identify biases, then provide recommendations for more inclusive and equitable content.
- The key focus is on ensuring medical training prepares future healthcare providers to offer high-quality, unbiased care to all patients, regardless of their background.
Plain English Explanation
The paper presents an approach to using AI to identify and address biases in the materials used to train future medical professionals. Bias in medical education can lead to healthcare providers developing blind spots or misunderstandings about certain patient populations, which can then negatively impact the care they provide.
By applying AI to analyze the content of medical curricula, the researchers were able to detect problematic biases - for example, over-representing certain demographics, using outdated or offensive terminology, or failing to cover health issues that disproportionately affect minoritized groups. The AI system then provided recommendations for revising the materials to be more inclusive and equitable.
The goal is to ensure that the next generation of healthcare providers is better equipped to deliver high-quality, unbiased care to all patients, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or other personal characteristics. This is an important step towards achieving more equitable health outcomes for underserved and marginalized communities.
Technical Explanation
The researchers developed an AI-based system to analyze the content of medical education materials and identify biases and gaps in representation. The system uses natural language processing and machine learning techniques to detect patterns and issues within the text, images, and other media included in medical curricula.
Key components of the system include:
- Ontology-based bias detection, which leverages structured knowledge bases to flag problematic language, outdated terminology, and missing information about specific patient populations.
- Multimodal bias analysis, which examines both textual and visual elements to identify biases in how different groups are represented.
- Bias mitigation recommendations, where the AI system suggests revisions to the content to make it more inclusive and equitable.
Through extensive testing and evaluation, the researchers demonstrated that this AI-powered approach can effectively identify and mitigate biases in medical education materials, ultimately helping to prepare future healthcare providers to deliver more fair and unbiased care.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-designed and rigorous approach to using AI for bias detection and mitigation in medical curricula. The researchers have clearly put a lot of thought into the technical implementation and have validated the system's effectiveness through extensive testing.
One potential limitation is the reliance on structured ontologies and knowledge bases, which may not capture all nuances of bias and representation. There could be value in also incorporating more open-ended, language-based approaches to bias detection.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the potential challenges or unintended consequences of deploying such a system in real-world educational settings. Factors like faculty buy-in, institutional resistance to change, and the risk of over-reliance on the AI recommendations would be important to consider.
Overall, this research represents an important step towards addressing biases in medical education and, by extension, improving healthcare equity. The AI-powered approach outlined in the paper holds promise, but further exploration of its real-world implications and limitations would be valuable.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel AI-based system for identifying and mitigating biases in medical curricular content. By automating the detection of problematic representation, terminology, and coverage gaps, the researchers aim to help prepare future healthcare providers to deliver more equitable care to all patients, regardless of their background.
The technical approach leverages a range of AI techniques, from ontology-based bias detection to multimodal analysis and bias mitigation recommendations. Through extensive testing, the researchers have demonstrated the system's effectiveness in surfacing and addressing biases in medical education materials.
While the paper does not delve deeply into the practical challenges of implementation, the core idea of using AI to enhance fairness and inclusivity in medical training is a compelling one. As the healthcare field continues to grapple with issues of bias and inequity, this type of AI-powered solution could play an important role in driving more equitable outcomes for patients from minoritized populations.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Reducing Biases towards Minoritized Populations in Medical Curricular Content via Artificial Intelligence for Fairer Health Outcomes
Chiman Salavati, Shannon Song, Willmar Sosa Diaz, Scott A. Hale, Roberto E. Montenegro, Fabricio Murai, Shiri Dori-Hacohen
Biased information (recently termed bisinformation) continues to be taught in medical curricula, often long after having been debunked. In this paper, we introduce BRICC, a firstin-class initiative that seeks to mitigate medical bisinformation using machine learning to systematically identify and flag text with potential biases, for subsequent review in an expert-in-the-loop fashion, thus greatly accelerating an otherwise labor-intensive process. A gold-standard BRICC dataset was developed throughout several years, and contains over 12K pages of instructional materials. Medical experts meticulously annotated these documents for bias according to comprehensive coding guidelines, emphasizing gender, sex, age, geography, ethnicity, and race. Using this labeled dataset, we trained, validated, and tested medical bias classifiers. We test three classifier approaches: a binary type-specific classifier, a general bias classifier; an ensemble combining bias type-specific classifiers independently-trained; and a multitask learning (MTL) model tasked with predicting both general and type-specific biases. While MTL led to some improvement on race bias detection in terms of F1-score, it did not outperform binary classifiers trained specifically on each task. On general bias detection, the binary classifier achieves up to 0.923 of AUC, a 27.8% improvement over the baseline. This work lays the foundations for debiasing medical curricula by exploring a novel dataset and evaluating different training model strategies. Hence, it offers new pathways for more nuanced and effective mitigation of bisinformation.
Read more7/18/2024
🌐
0
Towards objective and systematic evaluation of bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging
Emma A. M. Stanley, Raissa Souza, Anthony Winder, Vedant Gulve, Kimberly Amador, Matthias Wilms, Nils D. Forkert
Artificial intelligence (AI) models trained using medical images for clinical tasks often exhibit bias in the form of disparities in performance between subgroups. Since not all sources of biases in real-world medical imaging data are easily identifiable, it is challenging to comprehensively assess how those biases are encoded in models, and how capable bias mitigation methods are at ameliorating performance disparities. In this article, we introduce a novel analysis framework for systematically and objectively investigating the impact of biases in medical images on AI models. We developed and tested this framework for conducting controlled in silico trials to assess bias in medical imaging AI using a tool for generating synthetic magnetic resonance images with known disease effects and sources of bias. The feasibility is showcased by using three counterfactual bias scenarios to measure the impact of simulated bias effects on a convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier and the efficacy of three bias mitigation strategies. The analysis revealed that the simulated biases resulted in expected subgroup performance disparities when the CNN was trained on the synthetic datasets. Moreover, reweighing was identified as the most successful bias mitigation strategy for this setup, and we demonstrated how explainable AI methods can aid in investigating the manifestation of bias in the model using this framework. Developing fair AI models is a considerable challenge given that many and often unknown sources of biases can be present in medical imaging datasets. In this work, we present a novel methodology to objectively study the impact of biases and mitigation strategies on deep learning pipelines, which can support the development of clinical AI that is robust and responsible.
Read more7/2/2024
0
Towards Fairer Health Recommendations: finding informative unbiased samples via Word Sense Disambiguation
Gavin Butts, Pegah Emdad, Jethro Lee, Shannon Song, Chiman Salavati, Willmar Sosa Diaz, Shiri Dori-Hacohen, Fabricio Murai
There have been growing concerns around high-stake applications that rely on models trained with biased data, which consequently produce biased predictions, often harming the most vulnerable. In particular, biased medical data could cause health-related applications and recommender systems to create outputs that jeopardize patient care and widen disparities in health outcomes. A recent framework titled Fairness via AI posits that, instead of attempting to correct model biases, researchers must focus on their root causes by using AI to debias data. Inspired by this framework, we tackle bias detection in medical curricula using NLP models, including LLMs, and evaluate them on a gold standard dataset containing 4,105 excerpts annotated by medical experts for bias from a large corpus. We build on previous work by coauthors which augments the set of negative samples with non-annotated text containing social identifier terms. However, some of these terms, especially those related to race and ethnicity, can carry different meanings (e.g., white matter of spinal cord). To address this issue, we propose the use of Word Sense Disambiguation models to refine dataset quality by removing irrelevant sentences. We then evaluate fine-tuned variations of BERT models as well as GPT models with zero- and few-shot prompting. We found LLMs, considered SOTA on many NLP tasks, unsuitable for bias detection, while fine-tuned BERT models generally perform well across all evaluated metrics.
Read more9/12/2024
🔎
0
Unmasking Bias in AI: A Systematic Review of Bias Detection and Mitigation Strategies in Electronic Health Record-based Models
Feng Chen, Liqin Wang, Julie Hong, Jiaqi Jiang, Li Zhou
Objectives: Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in conjunction with electronic health records (EHRs) holds transformative potential to improve healthcare. Yet, addressing bias in AI, which risks worsening healthcare disparities, cannot be overlooked. This study reviews methods to detect and mitigate diverse forms of bias in AI models developed using EHR data. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, analyzing articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE published between January 1, 2010, and Dec 17, 2023. The review identified key biases, outlined strategies for detecting and mitigating bias throughout the AI model development process, and analyzed metrics for bias assessment. Results: Of the 450 articles retrieved, 20 met our criteria, revealing six major bias types: algorithmic, confounding, implicit, measurement, selection, and temporal. The AI models were primarily developed for predictive tasks in healthcare settings. Four studies concentrated on the detection of implicit and algorithmic biases employing fairness metrics like statistical parity, equal opportunity, and predictive equity. Sixty proposed various strategies for mitigating biases, especially targeting implicit and selection biases. These strategies, evaluated through both performance (e.g., accuracy, AUROC) and fairness metrics, predominantly involved data collection and preprocessing techniques like resampling, reweighting, and transformation. Discussion: This review highlights the varied and evolving nature of strategies to address bias in EHR-based AI models, emphasizing the urgent needs for the establishment of standardized, generalizable, and interpretable methodologies to foster the creation of ethical AI systems that promote fairness and equity in healthcare.
Read more7/2/2024