在医疗保健人工智能的整个生命周期中整合公平性、多样性和包容性:范围审查。

IF 7.7
PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-07-14 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000941
Ting Wang, Elham Emami, Dana Jafarpour, Raymond Tolentino, Genevieve Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi
{"title":"在医疗保健人工智能的整个生命周期中整合公平性、多样性和包容性:范围审查。","authors":"Ting Wang, Elham Emami, Dana Jafarpour, Raymond Tolentino, Genevieve Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The lack of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles in the lifecycle of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare is a growing concern. Despite its importance, there is still a gap in understanding the initiatives undertaken to address this issue. This review aims to explore what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI studies in healthcare. We followed the scoping review framework by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive search was conducted until April 29, 2022, across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, and SCI-EXPANDED. Only research studies in which the integration of EDI in AI was the primary focus were included. Non-research articles were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. To synthesize the findings, we conducted a thematic analysis and used a narrative description. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for reporting scoping reviews. The search yielded 10,664 records, with 42 studies included. Most studies were conducted on the American population. Previous research has shown that AI models improve when socio-demographic factors such as gender and race are considered. Despite frameworks for EDI integration, no comprehensive approach systematically applies EDI principles in AI model development. Additionally, the integration of EDI into the AI implementation phase remains under-explored, and the representation of EDI within AI teams has been overlooked. This review reports on what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI technologies in healthcare. We used a thorough search strategy and rigorous methodology, though we acknowledge limitations such as language and publication bias. A comprehensive framework is needed to ensure that EDI principles are considered throughout the AI lifecycle. Future research could focus on strategies to reduce algorithmic bias, assess the long-term impact of EDI integration, and explore policy implications to ensure that AI technologies are ethical, responsible, and beneficial for all.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 7","pages":"e0000941"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12258586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Ting Wang, Elham Emami, Dana Jafarpour, Raymond Tolentino, Genevieve Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The lack of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles in the lifecycle of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare is a growing concern. Despite its importance, there is still a gap in understanding the initiatives undertaken to address this issue. This review aims to explore what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI studies in healthcare. We followed the scoping review framework by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive search was conducted until April 29, 2022, across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, and SCI-EXPANDED. Only research studies in which the integration of EDI in AI was the primary focus were included. Non-research articles were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. To synthesize the findings, we conducted a thematic analysis and used a narrative description. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for reporting scoping reviews. The search yielded 10,664 records, with 42 studies included. Most studies were conducted on the American population. Previous research has shown that AI models improve when socio-demographic factors such as gender and race are considered. Despite frameworks for EDI integration, no comprehensive approach systematically applies EDI principles in AI model development. Additionally, the integration of EDI into the AI implementation phase remains under-explored, and the representation of EDI within AI teams has been overlooked. This review reports on what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI technologies in healthcare. We used a thorough search strategy and rigorous methodology, though we acknowledge limitations such as language and publication bias. A comprehensive framework is needed to ensure that EDI principles are considered throughout the AI lifecycle. Future research could focus on strategies to reduce algorithmic bias, assess the long-term impact of EDI integration, and explore policy implications to ensure that AI technologies are ethical, responsible, and beneficial for all.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"volume\":\"4 7\",\"pages\":\"e0000941\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12258586/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在医疗保健领域人工智能(AI)技术的生命周期中缺乏公平、多样性和包容性(EDI)原则是一个日益受到关注的问题。尽管它很重要,但在了解为解决这一问题所采取的主动行动方面仍然存在差距。这篇综述旨在探讨EDI原则是如何被整合到医疗保健领域人工智能研究的设计、开发和实施中的。我们遵循了Levac等人和Joanna Briggs研究所的范围审查框架。在MEDLINE、Embase、PsycInfo、Scopus和SCI-EXPANDED上进行了全面的检索,直到2022年4月29日。仅包括以EDI在AI中的集成为主要焦点的研究。非研究文章被排除在外。两名独立审稿人筛选摘要和全文,通过协商一致或咨询第三方审稿人来解决分歧。为了综合研究结果,我们进行了主题分析并使用了叙述性描述。我们坚持使用PRISMA-ScR检查表来报告范围审查。这项搜索产生了10664条记录,其中包括42项研究。大多数研究都是在美国人口中进行的。之前的研究表明,当考虑到性别和种族等社会人口因素时,人工智能模型会得到改善。尽管有EDI集成框架,但没有综合的方法系统地将EDI原则应用于AI模型开发。此外,将EDI集成到AI实现阶段仍然没有得到充分的探索,并且在AI团队中EDI的表示也被忽视了。这篇综述报告了EDI原则是如何被集成到医疗保健领域人工智能技术的设计、开发和实现中的。我们使用了彻底的搜索策略和严格的方法,尽管我们承认语言和出版偏见等局限性。需要一个全面的框架来确保在整个AI生命周期中考虑EDI原则。未来的研究可以侧重于减少算法偏见的策略,评估EDI集成的长期影响,并探索政策影响,以确保人工智能技术符合道德、负责任和有益于所有人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review.

Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review.

Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review.

Integrating equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence for healthcare: a scoping review.

The lack of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles in the lifecycle of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare is a growing concern. Despite its importance, there is still a gap in understanding the initiatives undertaken to address this issue. This review aims to explore what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI studies in healthcare. We followed the scoping review framework by Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive search was conducted until April 29, 2022, across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, and SCI-EXPANDED. Only research studies in which the integration of EDI in AI was the primary focus were included. Non-research articles were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. To synthesize the findings, we conducted a thematic analysis and used a narrative description. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for reporting scoping reviews. The search yielded 10,664 records, with 42 studies included. Most studies were conducted on the American population. Previous research has shown that AI models improve when socio-demographic factors such as gender and race are considered. Despite frameworks for EDI integration, no comprehensive approach systematically applies EDI principles in AI model development. Additionally, the integration of EDI into the AI implementation phase remains under-explored, and the representation of EDI within AI teams has been overlooked. This review reports on what and how EDI principles have been integrated into the design, development, and implementation of AI technologies in healthcare. We used a thorough search strategy and rigorous methodology, though we acknowledge limitations such as language and publication bias. A comprehensive framework is needed to ensure that EDI principles are considered throughout the AI lifecycle. Future research could focus on strategies to reduce algorithmic bias, assess the long-term impact of EDI integration, and explore policy implications to ensure that AI technologies are ethical, responsible, and beneficial for all.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信