Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38568737›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Toward Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics in AI for Social Media and Health Care: Scoping Review.

Aditya Singhal, Nikita Neveditsin, Hasnaat Tanveer, Vijay Mago

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Digital and AI-enhanced psychosocial interventions in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Bias in Burn Care: A Literature Review of Ethical Challenges.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Aditya SinghalDepartment of Computer Science, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9634-4075
Nikita NeveditsinDepartment of Mathematics and Computing Science, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9859-3905
Hasnaat TanveerFaculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0171-7957
Vijay MagoSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9741-3463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of social media for disseminating health care information has become increasingly prevalent, making the expanding role of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in this process both significant and inevitable. This development raises numerous ethical concerns. This study explored the ethical use of AI and machine learning in the context of health care information on social media platforms (SMPs). It critically examined these technologies from the perspectives of fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics (FATE), emphasizing computational and methodological approaches that ensure their responsible application.

objectiveThis study aims to identify, compare, and synthesize existing solutions that address the components of FATE in AI applications in health care on SMPs. Through an in-depth exploration of computational methods, approaches, and evaluation metrics used in various initiatives, we sought to elucidate the current state of the art and identify existing gaps. Furthermore, we assessed the strength of the evidence supporting each identified solution and discussed the implications of our findings for future research and practice. In doing so, we made a unique contribution to the field by highlighting areas that require further exploration and innovation.

methodsOur research methodology involved a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We used strategic searches through specific filters to identify relevant research papers published since 2012 focusing on the intersection and union of different literature sets. The inclusion criteria were centered on studies that primarily addressed FATE in health care discussions on SMPs; those presenting empirical results; and those covering definitions, computational methods, approaches, and evaluation metrics.

resultsOur findings present a nuanced breakdown of the FATE principles, aligning them where applicable with the American Medical Informatics Association ethical guidelines. By dividing these principles into dedicated sections, we detailed specific computational methods and conceptual approaches tailored to enforcing FATE in AI-driven health care on SMPs. This segmentation facilitated a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship among the FATE principles and highlighted the practical challenges encountered in their application. It underscored the pioneering contributions of our study to the discourse on ethical AI in health care on SMPs, emphasizing the complex interplay and the limitations faced in implementing these principles effectively.

conclusionsDespite the existence of diverse approaches and metrics to address FATE issues in AI for health care on SMPs, challenges persist. The application of these approaches often intersects with additional ethical considerations, occasionally leading to conflicts. Our review highlights the lack of a unified, comprehensive solution for fully and effectively integrating FATE principles in this domain. This gap necessitates careful consideration of the ethical trade-offs involved in deploying existing methods and underscores the need for ongoing research.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencefairness, accountability, transparency, and ethicshealth caresocial media

Identifiers

PMID38568737
PMCPMC11024755

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.