Addressing bias in artificial intelligence for public health surveillance

Abstract

Components of artificial intelligence (AI) for analysing social big data, such as natural language processing (NLP) algorithms, have improved the timeliness and robustness of health data. NLP techniques have been implemented to analyse large volumes of text from social media platforms to gain insights on disease symptoms, understand barriers to care and predict disease outbreaks. However, AI-based decisions may contain biases that could misrepresent populations, skew results or lead to errors. Bias, within the scope of this paper, is described as the difference between the predictive values and true values within the modelling of an algorithm. Bias within algorithms may lead to inaccurate healthcare outcomes and exacerbate health disparities when results derived from these biased algorithms are applied to health interventions. Researchers who implement these algorithms must consider when and how bias may arise. This paper explores algorithmic biases as a result of data collection, labelling and modelling of NLP algorithms. Researchers have a role in ensuring that efforts towards combating bias are enforced, especially when drawing health conclusions derived from social media posts that are linguistically diverse. Through the implementation of open collaboration, auditing processes and the development of guidelines, researchers may be able to reduce bias and improve NLP algorithms that improve health surveillance.

Assessment of Saudi Public Perceptions and Opinions towards Artificial Intelligence in Health Care

“…Additionally, research indicates that artificial intelligence (AI) may enhance the capacity of public health to advance everyone’s health in every community [ 16 , 17 ]. Public health organizations must carefully consider their AI implementation techniques in order to properly fulfill this promise and apply AI to public health tasks [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

A systematic evaluation of the performance of GPT‐4 and PaLM2 to diagnose comorbidities in MIMIC‐IV patients

“…Transparent data usage policies and compliance with the provisions of data protection regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, are indispensable. Further concerns related to the lack of transparency (the “black box” problem) [ 22 ] and potential biases in AI predictions [ 23 ] may emerge. The unavailability of a clear audit trail for AI predictions could hamper accountability, while bias can inadvertently creep into AI outputs due to skewed representation or inherent prejudices in the training data.…”

Promises and Perils of Big Data: Philosophical Constraints on Chemical Ontologies

“…The use of big chemical data and data-driven approaches, however, comes with risks. The problems of biased training data producing biased ML algorithms and, more generally, analysis of biased data producing biased results are well documented across the natural and social sciences. − Misleading results will not only confuse and distract scientific progress but also undermine public confidence in science itself. − To manage difficulties associated with big data, data scientists have developed several metrics for assessing the reliability and accessibility of results from big data use. The “five Vs” − velocity, volume, value, variety and veracityserve as use principles for generating reliable results from big data (Figure ).…”