Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are central components of today's medical environment. The fairness of AI, i.e. the ability of AI to be free from bias, has repeatedly come into question. This study investigates the diversity of members of academia whose scholarship poses questions about the fairness of AI. The articles that combine the topics of fairness, artificial intelligence, and medicine were selected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Embase using keywords. Eligibility and data extraction from the articles were done manually and cross-checked by another author for accuracy. Articles were selected for further analysis, cleaned, and organized in Microsoft Excel; spatial diagrams were generated using Public Tableau. Additional graphs were generated using Matplotlib and Seaborn. Linear and logistic regressions were conducted using Python to measure the relationship between funding status, number of citations, and the gender demographics of the authorship team. We identified 375 eligible publications, including research and review articles concerning AI and fairness in healthcare. Analysis of the bibliographic data revealed that there is an overrepresentation of authors that are white, male, and are from high-income countries, especially in the roles of first and last author. Additionally, analysis showed that papers whose authors are based in higher-income countries were more likely to be cited more often and published in higher impact journals. These findings highlight the lack of diversity among the authors in the AI fairness community whose work gains the largest readership, potentially compromising the very impartiality that the AI fairness community is working towards., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Alberto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

In the wake of emergent natural and anthropogenic disasters, telehealth presents opportunities to improve access to healthcare when physical access is not possible. Yet, since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, lessons learned reveal that various populations in the United States do not or cannot adopt telehealth due to inequitable access. We explored the Digital Determinants of Health (DDoHs) for telehealth, characterizing the role of accessibility, broadband connectivity and electrical grids, and patient intersectionality. In addition to its role as an existing Social Determinant of Health, Policies and Laws directly and indirectly affect these DDoHs, making access more complex for marginalized populations. Digital systems lack the flexibility, accessibility, and usability to inclusively provide the essential services patients need in telehealth. We propose the following recommendations: (1) design technology and systems using accessibility and value sensitive design principles; (2) support a range of technologies and settings; (3) support multiple and diverse users; and (4) support clear paths for repair when technical systems fail to meet users' needs. Addressing these requires change not only from providers but also from the institutions providing these systems., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)