Rise of the machines: Can AI eliminate bias in public healthcare?

The development of Artificial Intelligence has become part of the public consciousness more and more in recent months. Within the realm of healthcare, AI algorithms are already in use in some areas to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes and guide treatment. More and more research is being commissioned to look at newly developed apps harnessing AI to support speedier, more efficient practices in vast areas of medicine and AI is being used to accelerate drug discovery and identify potential new cures. The potential benefits of AI in all arenas of healthcare are manifold and its champions view the growth of AI as heralding an entirely new era for medical breakthroughs.

However, as with all seed changes throughout humanity, the dawn of AI has raised some difficult ethical questions and has magnified the disparities already apparent within healthcare. “One of the problems that’s been shown in AI in general and in particular for medicine is that these algorithms can be biased, meaning that they perform differently on different groups of people,” says Paul Yi, Director of the University of Maryland Medical Intelligent Imaging Center.

The preventable differences in disease burden, injury and access to healthcare disproportionately affecting people of colour and underserved communities has already been widely documented and studied. The problem now arising is whether the development of AI algorithms in healthcare will further widen these health disparities. The concerns about this are so grave that the WHO itself has called this month for caution when using AI for public healthcare, citing worries that the data used to train AI tools could be biased or misleading.

If the data used to train AI algorithms underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group then the algorithm will not perform accurately, thus compounding already existent inequalities relating to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. “Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that… is often disproportionately distributed to marginalised populations,” says Benjamin Collins of Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

To reduce bias in AI, developers, inventors and researchers of AI-based medical technologies need to consciously prepare for avoiding it by proactively improving the representation of certain populations in the dataset,” said Bertalan Meskó, Director of the Medical Futurist Institute in Budapest. The issue of bias in medical research is not a new one but with the advent of AI and its use within public healthcare these issues become more pronounced.

Share:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

More Blogs from LDA

Rare Disease Networks Perspectives Series – Blog 3 out of 5: Policy, Protection, and Progress: The Regulatory Perspective on Rare Disease Networks

Regulation, by its nature, is cautious. Agencies tasked with protecting public health are not designed to move fast; they are designed to be rigorous. Yet rare diseases have, from the very beginning, placed regulators in an uncomfortable position. The same caution that protects patients from unsafe or ineffective treatments also, if applied without adaptation, denies those same patients access to

Continue reading »

Meet our team member Susana!

Hi, I’m Susana Londono, a Research Manager at LDA Research, specialising in research across Latin America and Spain. I joined LDA in June 2024, bringing with me a background in market research, having previously worked as a research analyst. My role involves managing projects from end to end, coordinating with clients and stakeholders, and leading recruitment activities to ensure we

Continue reading »

From Orphan to Opportunity: The Evolution of Pharmaceutical Engagement in Rare Disease Networks

For most of the twentieth century, the pharmaceutical industry’s relationship with rare diseases could be summarised in a single phrase: studied indifference. The economics were simply prohibitive. Small patient populations meant limited revenue potential; limited revenue meant that even promising science rarely attracted the capital needed to progress from laboratory to clinic. The FDA estimated that in the decades before

Continue reading »

Contact us

Mandatory fields *