Anmol Arora, Joseph E. Alderman, Joanne Palmer, Shaswath Ganapathi, Elinor Laws, Melissa D. McCradden, Lauren Oakden-Rayner, Stephen R. Pfohl, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Francis McKay, Darren Treanor, Negar Rostamzadeh, Bilal Mateen, Jacqui Gath, Adewole O. Adebajo, Stephanie Kuku, Rubeta Matin, Katherine Heller, Elizabeth Sapey, Neil J. Sebire, Heather Cole-Lewis, Melanie Calvert, Alastair Denniston, Xiaoxuan Liu
{"title":"健康数据集标准在基于人工智能的应用中的价值。","authors":"Anmol Arora, Joseph E. Alderman, Joanne Palmer, Shaswath Ganapathi, Elinor Laws, Melissa D. McCradden, Lauren Oakden-Rayner, Stephen R. Pfohl, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Francis McKay, Darren Treanor, Negar Rostamzadeh, Bilal Mateen, Jacqui Gath, Adewole O. Adebajo, Stephanie Kuku, Rubeta Matin, Katherine Heller, Elizabeth Sapey, Neil J. Sebire, Heather Cole-Lewis, Melanie Calvert, Alastair Denniston, Xiaoxuan Liu","doi":"10.1038/s41591-023-02608-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative). A systematic review, combined with a stakeholder survey, presents an overview of current practices and recommendations for dataset curation in health, with specific focuses on data diversity and artificial intelligence-based applications.","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"29 11","pages":"2929-2938"},"PeriodicalIF":58.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10667100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications\",\"authors\":\"Anmol Arora, Joseph E. Alderman, Joanne Palmer, Shaswath Ganapathi, Elinor Laws, Melissa D. McCradden, Lauren Oakden-Rayner, Stephen R. Pfohl, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Francis McKay, Darren Treanor, Negar Rostamzadeh, Bilal Mateen, Jacqui Gath, Adewole O. Adebajo, Stephanie Kuku, Rubeta Matin, Katherine Heller, Elizabeth Sapey, Neil J. Sebire, Heather Cole-Lewis, Melanie Calvert, Alastair Denniston, Xiaoxuan Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41591-023-02608-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative). A systematic review, combined with a stakeholder survey, presents an overview of current practices and recommendations for dataset curation in health, with specific focuses on data diversity and artificial intelligence-based applications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Medicine\",\"volume\":\"29 11\",\"pages\":\"2929-2938\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":58.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10667100/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02608-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02608-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications
Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative). A systematic review, combined with a stakeholder survey, presents an overview of current practices and recommendations for dataset curation in health, with specific focuses on data diversity and artificial intelligence-based applications.
期刊介绍:
Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors.
Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including:
-Case-reports and small case series
-Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4
-Observational studies
-Meta-analyses
-Biomarker studies
-Public and global health studies
Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.