Login / Signup

A scientometric analysis of fairness in health AI literature.

Isabelle Rose I AlbertoNicole Rose I AlbertoYuksel AltinelSarah BlackerWilliam Warr BinottiLeo Anthony CeliTiffany ChuaAmelia FiskeMolly GriffinGulce KaracaNkiruka MokoloDavid Kojo N NaawuJonathan PatscheiderAnton PetushkovJustin Michael QuionCharles SenteioSimon Taisbakİsmail TırnovaHarumi TokashikiAdrian VelasquezAntonio YaghyKeagan Yap
Published in: PLOS global public health (2024)
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.
Keyphrases