ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Amid rising interest in participatory research, some industries have recently begun to practice public relations citizen science (PRCS). Unlike citizen science and crowdsourcing projects that generate raw materials for product development, PRCS benefits capitalist firms primarily by improving their public image and deflecting accusations of causing harm. Three cases illustrate how PRCS works: (1) a growing assortment of citizen science projects associated with Antarctic tourism, (2) an initiative to document biodiversity, linked to Canada's oil and gas industry, and (3) a study sponsored by Biology Fortified, a nonprofit organization that works to communicate positive information about agricultural biotechnology. Scientists and research organizations may have legitimate reasons for entering into these partnerships, but PRCS can benefit industries in problematic ways. First, by supporting environmental science, PRCS can attach a 'sustainable' image to a polluting industry, without changing its core practices. Second, PRCS can accumulate data and steer volunteers' observations in ways that undermine claims about the harms caused by the industry's practices or products. Finally, in some cases, PRCS organizers hope to induce people to view an industry more 'rationally' than those who make 'emotional' or 'ideological' claims about its harms.
Subject(s)
Citizen Science , Humans , Industry , Public Relations , VolunteersABSTRACT
Recent studies have indicated that preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) should not be routinely performed in all patients suffering from obstructive jaundice before pancreatic surgery. The severity of jaundice that mandates PBD has yet to be defined. The evaluated paper examines the impact of PBD on intra-operative, and post-operative outcomes in patients initially presenting with severe obstructive jaundice (bilirubin ≥250 µmol/L). In this key paper evaluation, the impact of PBD versus a direct surgery (DS) approach is discussed. The arguments for and against each approach are considered with regards to drainage associated morbidity and mortality, resection rates, survival and the impact of chemotherapy and malnutrition. Concentrating on resectable head of pancreas tumors, this mini-review aims to scrutinize the authors' recommendations, alongside those of prominent papers in the field.
