Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33565982›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2021

The Need for Ethnoracial Equity in Artificial Intelligence for Diabetes Management: Review and Recommendations.

Quynh Pham, Anissa Gamble, Jason Hearn, Joseph A Cafazzo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Potential of artificial intelligence in injury prevention research and practice.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Quynh PhamCentre for Global eHealth Innovation, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0540-4181
Anissa GambleCentre for Global eHealth Innovation, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5178-2976
Jason HearnCentre for Global eHealth Innovation, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2895-1708
Joseph A CafazzoCentre for Global eHealth Innovation, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3114-4440
University Health Network · CAMemorial University of Newfoundland · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is clear evidence to suggest that diabetes does not affect all populations equally. Among adults living with diabetes, those from ethnoracial minority communities-foreign-born, immigrant, refugee, and culturally marginalized-are at increased risk of poor health outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI) is actively being researched as a means of improving diabetes management and care; however, several factors may predispose AI to ethnoracial bias. To better understand whether diabetes AI interventions are being designed in an ethnoracially equitable manner, we conducted a secondary analysis of 141 articles included in a 2018 review by Contreras and Vehi entitled "Artificial Intelligence for Diabetes Management and Decision Support: Literature Review." Two members of our research team independently reviewed each article and selected those reporting ethnoracial data for further analysis. Only 10 articles (7.1%) were ultimately selected for secondary analysis in our case study. Of the 131 excluded articles, 118 (90.1%) failed to mention participants' ethnic or racial backgrounds. The included articles reported ethnoracial data under various categories, including race (n=6), ethnicity (n=2), race/ethnicity (n=3), and percentage of Caucasian participants (n=1). Among articles specifically reporting race, the average distribution was 69.5% White, 17.1% Black, and 3.7% Asian. Only 2 articles reported inclusion of Native American participants. Given the clear ethnic and racial differences in diabetes biomarkers, prevalence, and outcomes, the inclusion of ethnoracial training data is likely to improve the accuracy of predictive models. Such considerations are imperative in AI-based tools, which are predisposed to negative biases due to their black-box nature and proneness to distributional shift. Based on our findings, we propose a short questionnaire to assess ethnoracial equity in research describing AI-based diabetes interventions. At this unprecedented time in history, AI can either mitigate or exacerbate disparities in health care. Future accounts of the infancy of diabetes AI must reflect our early and decisive action to confront ethnoracial inequities before they are coded into our systems and perpetuate the very biases we aim to eliminate. If we take deliberate and meaningful steps now toward training our algorithms to be ethnoracially inclusive, we can architect innovations in diabetes care that are bound by the diverse fabric of our society.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiabetes MellitusEthnicityHumansMinority Groupsartificial intelligencediabetesdigital healthethnicityethnoracial equityrace

Identifiers

PMID33565982
PMCPMC7904401
OpenAlexW3126125806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.