重新思考全球健康人工智能伦理方面的专业知识。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bilal Irfan, Roberto Sirvent
{"title":"重新思考全球健康人工智能伦理方面的专业知识。","authors":"Bilal Irfan, Roberto Sirvent","doi":"10.1093/inthealth/ihaf114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Debates on AI ethics in global health often privilege professionalized authority over those most exposed to harm. We argue for the need to consider redistributing ethical authority to affected communities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, potentially through participatory councils with decision power over evaluation metrics, equity constraints, and deployment. Centering lived experience can strengthen safety, accountability, and decolonial governance, may aid in addressing algorithmic bias and financial toxicity, and could align with WHO guidance for public-interest AI. We offer potential practical mechanisms to co-lead design, trials, and post-deployment monitoring so AI advances health and rights rather than simply reproducing inequities.</p>","PeriodicalId":49060,"journal":{"name":"International Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking expertise in artificial intelligence ethics for global health.\",\"authors\":\"Bilal Irfan, Roberto Sirvent\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/inthealth/ihaf114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Debates on AI ethics in global health often privilege professionalized authority over those most exposed to harm. We argue for the need to consider redistributing ethical authority to affected communities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, potentially through participatory councils with decision power over evaluation metrics, equity constraints, and deployment. Centering lived experience can strengthen safety, accountability, and decolonial governance, may aid in addressing algorithmic bias and financial toxicity, and could align with WHO guidance for public-interest AI. We offer potential practical mechanisms to co-lead design, trials, and post-deployment monitoring so AI advances health and rights rather than simply reproducing inequities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihaf114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihaf114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于全球卫生领域人工智能伦理的辩论往往使专业权威凌驾于那些最容易受到伤害的人之上。我们认为有必要考虑将伦理权威重新分配给受影响的社区,特别是在低收入和中等收入国家,可能通过对评估指标、公平约束和部署拥有决策权的参与性委员会。以生活经验为中心可以加强安全性、问责制和非殖民化治理,可能有助于解决算法偏见和财务毒性,并可能符合世卫组织对公共利益人工智能的指导。我们提供潜在的实用机制,共同领导设计、试验和部署后监测,使人工智能促进健康和权利,而不是简单地再现不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking expertise in artificial intelligence ethics for global health.

Debates on AI ethics in global health often privilege professionalized authority over those most exposed to harm. We argue for the need to consider redistributing ethical authority to affected communities, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, potentially through participatory councils with decision power over evaluation metrics, equity constraints, and deployment. Centering lived experience can strengthen safety, accountability, and decolonial governance, may aid in addressing algorithmic bias and financial toxicity, and could align with WHO guidance for public-interest AI. We offer potential practical mechanisms to co-lead design, trials, and post-deployment monitoring so AI advances health and rights rather than simply reproducing inequities.

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
International Health
International Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Health is an official journal of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. It publishes original, peer-reviewed articles and reviews on all aspects of global health including the social and economic aspects of communicable and non-communicable diseases, health systems research, policy and implementation, and the evaluation of disease control programmes and healthcare delivery solutions. It aims to stimulate scientific and policy debate and provide a forum for analysis and opinion sharing for individuals and organisations engaged in all areas of global health.
×
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