Nurturing diversity and inclusion in AI in Biomedicine through a virtual summer program for high school students.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the power to improve our lives through a wide variety of applications, many of which fall into the healthcare space; however, a lack of diversity is contributing to limitations in how broadly AI can help people. The UCSF AI4ALL program was established in 2019 to address this issue by targeting high school students from underrepresented backgrounds in AI, giving them a chance to learn about AI with a focus on biomedicine, and promoting diversity and inclusion. In 2020, the UCSF AI4ALL three-week program was held entirely online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, students participated virtually to gain experience with AI, interact with diverse role models in AI, and learn about advancing health through AI. Specifically, they attended lectures in coding and AI, received an in-depth research experience through hands-on projects exploring COVID-19, and engaged in mentoring and personal development sessions with faculty, researchers, industry professionals, and undergraduate and graduate students, many of whom were women and from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds. At the conclusion of the program, the students presented the results of their research projects at the final symposium. Comparison of pre- and post-program survey responses from students demonstrated that after the program, significantly more students were familiar with how to work with data and to evaluate and apply machine learning algorithms. There were also nominally significant increases in the students' knowing people in AI from historically underrepresented groups, feeling confident in discussing AI, and being aware of careers in AI. We found that we were able to engage young students in AI via our online training program and nurture greater diversity in AI. This work can guide AI training programs aspiring to engage and educate students entirely online, and motivate people in AI to strive towards increasing diversity and inclusion in this field.

Investing in global health security: Estimating cost requirements for country-level capacity building.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted critical gaps in global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious diseases. To effectively allocate investments that address these gaps, it is first necessary to quantify the extent of the need, evaluate the types of resources and activities that require additional support, and engage the global community in ongoing assessment, planning, and implementation. Which investments are needed, where, to strengthen health security? This work aims to estimate costs to strengthen country-level health security, globally and identify associated cost drivers. The cost of building public health capacity is estimated based on investments needed, per country, to progress towards the benchmarks identified by the World Health Organization's Joint External Evaluation (JEE). For each country, costs are estimated to progress to a score of "demonstrated capacity" (4) across indicators. Over five years, an estimated US$124 billion is needed to reach "demonstrated capacity" on each indicator of the JEE for each of the 196 States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Personnel costs, including skilled health, public health, and animal health workers, are the single most influential cost driver, comprising 66% of total costs. These findings, and the data generated by this effort, provide cost estimates to inform ongoing health security financing discussions at the global level. The results highlight the significant need for sustainable financing mechanisms for both workforce development and ongoing support for the health and public health workforce.

Understanding and comparing HIV-related law and policy environments: cross-national data and accountability for the global AIDS response.

Law and policy differences help explain why, as HIV-related science has advanced swiftly, some countries have realised remarkable progress on AIDS while others see expanding epidemics. We describe the structure and findings of a new dataset and research platform, the HIV Policy Lab, which fills an important knowledge gap by measuring the HIV-related policy environment across 33 indicators and 194 countries over time, with online access and visualisation. Cross-national indicators can be critical tools in international governance-building social power to monitor state behaviour with the potential to change policy and improve domestic accountability. This new and evolving effort collects data about policy through review of legal documents, official government reports and systematic review of secondary sources. Alignment between national policy environments and global norms is demonstrated through comparison with international public health guidance and agreements. We demonstrate substantial variation in the content of law and policies between countries, regions and policy areas. Given progress in basic and implementation science, it would be tempting to believe most countries have adopted policies aligned with global norms, with a few outliers. Data show this is not the case. Globally, alignment is higher on clinical and treatment policies than on prevention, testing and structural policies. Policy-makers, researchers, civil society, finance agencies and others can use these data to better understand the policy environment within and across countries and support reform. Longitudinal analysis enables evaluation of the impact of laws and policies on HIV outcomes and research about the political drivers of policy choice.

Action-Based Costing for National Action Plans for Health Security: Accelerating Progress Toward the International Health Regulations (2005).

Multiple costing tools have been developed to understand the resources required to build and sustain implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR), including a detailed costing tool developed by WHO ("WHO Costing Tool") and 2 action-based costing tools, Georgetown University's IHR Costing Tool and CDC's Priority Actions Costing Tool (PACT). The relative performance of these tools is unknown. Nigeria costed its National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) using the WHO Costing Tool. We conducted a desktop review, using the other tools to compare the cost estimates generated using different costing approaches. Technical working groups developed activity plans and estimated component costs using the WHO Costing Tool during a weeklong workshop with approximately 60 participants from various ministries, departments, and federal agencies. We retrospectively applied the IHR Costing Tool and PACT to generate rapid cost estimates required to achieve a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) score of "demonstrated capacity" (level 4). The tools generated similar activities for implementation. Cost estimates varied based on the anticipated procurement and human resources requirements and by the level of implementation (eg, health facility-level versus local government area-level procurement). The desktop IHR Costing Tool and PACT tools required approximately 2 and 8 person-hours to complete, respectively. A strategic costing approach, wherein governments select from a menu of recommended and costed actions following the JEE to develop a NAPHS, could accelerate implementation of plans. Major cost drivers, including procurement and human resources, should be prioritized based on anticipated resource availability and countries' priorities.

Tracking the Flow of Funds in Global Health Security.

Countries, philanthropies, and private sector organizations have been actively investing in global health security around the world. However, despite the coordinated approach to funding within the Global Health Security Agenda, there is currently no well-established method to track the commitment and disbursal of funds for global health security from funders to recipients or to identify the activities supported by existing funding initiatives. To address this need, we developed the Global Health Security Tracking Dashboard. This interactive, publicly available, Web-based dashboard maps the flow of funds from funder to recipient and categorizes the target efforts of those funds, allowing users to identify patterns of influence and success in health security funding implementation. The dashboard provides an evidence-based approach for defining targets for future funding by identifying the areas in which funds have not yet been effectively allocated, showcasing successes, and providing a source of information to promote mutual accountability.

Strengthening health security: an intuitive and user-friendly tool to estimate country-level costs.

Member States of the WHO working to build capacity under the International Health Regulations (IHR) are advised to develop prioritised, costed plans to implement improvements based on the results of voluntary external assessments. Defining the costs associated with capacity building under the IHR, however, has challenged nations, funders and supporting organisations. Most current efforts to develop costed national action plans involve long-term engagements that may take weeks or months to complete. While these efforts have value in and of themselves, there is an urgent need for a rapid-use tool to provide cost estimates regardless of the level of expertise of the personnel assigned to the task. In this paper, we describe a tool that can-in a matter of hours-provide country-level cost estimates for capacity building under the IHR. This paper also describes how the tool can be used in countries, as well as the challenges inherent in any costing process.

Mapping stakeholders and policies in response to deliberate biological events.

BACKGROUND: Recent infectious disease outbreaks have brought increased attention to the need to strengthen global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to natural biological threats. However, deliberate biological events also represent a significant global threat, but have received relatively little attention. While the Biological Weapons Convention provides a foundation for the response to deliberate biological events, the political mechanisms to respond to and recover from such an event are poorly defined. METHODS: We performed an analysis of the epidemiological timeline, the international policies triggered as a notional deliberate biological event unfolds, and the corresponding stakeholders and mandates assigned by each policy. FINDINGS: The results of this analysis identify a significant gap in both policy and stakeholder mandates: there is no single policy nor stakeholder mandate for leading and coordinating response activities associated with a deliberate biological event. These results were visualized using an open source web-based tool published at https://dbe.talusanalytics.com. INTERPRETATION: While there are organizations and stakeholders responsible for leading security or public health response, these roles are non-overlapping and are led by organizations not with limited interaction outside such events. The lack of mandates highlights a gap in the mechanisms available to coordinate response and a gap in guidance for managing the response. The results of the analysis corroborate anecdotal evidence from stakeholder meetings and highlight a critical need and gap in deliberate biological response policy.

Patient perspectives on neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: Data from the PatientsLikeMe online community.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated patient perspectives on neuromyelitis optica (NMO) and NMO spectrum disorder (NMOSD). OBJECTIVE: Describe patient-reported clinical and treatment experience in NMOSD and compare disease characteristics of NMOSD with those of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included 522 members with NMO or NMOSD (hereafter collectively referred to as NMOSD) from PatientsLikeMe (PLM), an online patient community. Data describing member demographics, symptoms, and treatments were collected, analysed descriptively, and compared with data from PLM members with MS. RESULTS: Fatigue, pain, and stiffness/spasticity were each rated as moderate to severe by more than half of NMOSD members, and 59% reported that their health limited the type of work or other activities they could perform all or most of the time. Overall, symptom severity and disability levels were comparable between NMOSD and MS members; however, NMOSD members were more likely than MS members to attribute disability to vision-related symptoms and were less likely to report moderate to severe cognitive and emotional symptoms, including brain fog, depressed or anxious mood, and emotional lability. CONCLUSION: This analysis underscores the challenges of living with fatigue, pain, stiffness/spasticity, and visual difficulties, prevalent NMOSD symptoms among members of the PLM community.