Original Article

Background

Confounders

A confounder is a variable that influences both the outcome and the predictor simultaneously^⁠1. A clear example of confounding in medicine is the mistaken belief that lower social competence is a predictor of schizophrenia^{⁠2 ⁠3}. In fact, the association may be inverse; schizophrenia is often more prevalent in populations with lower socioeconomic status^⁠3. This is not necessarily because poverty induces the disorder, but rather because schizophrenia itself can diminish social and vocational competencies, influencing the socioeconomic status of affected individuals.^⁠3

This research will examine confounders that not only introduce bias, as previously mentioned, but also raise ethical concerns, such as social disparities^{⁠4 ⁠5 ⁠6 ⁠7 ⁠8 ⁠9}. Examples of these confounders include race, nationality, immigrant status, religion, and socioeconomic status.

The scientific validity and statistical significance derived from these confounders are questionable because they can be influenced by a multitude of other factors associated with the identity of a particular population, such as environmental factors like climate, solar or geomagnetic activity, air pollution, natural radiation exposure, the region's gravitational field, etc^{10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26}. Environmental factors can significantly impact our genome,²⁷ and disease patterns, more so than the superficial markers indicated on identity cards.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of natural science practitioners on the latest recommendations of official regulators regarding the prevention of causes of social disparities in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models^{⁠9 ⁠8}, particularly those that could arise from nationality and immigrant status within healthcare settings.

Material and Methods

An anonymous online survey was conducted using the Telegram platform, where participants were asked a single question: "Is the inclusion of predictors such as 'Nationality', 'Place of Birth', and 'Immigrant Status' in AI and ML medical models ethical and consistent with contemporary scientific standards?" Respondents were provided with two response options: "Yes" or "No."

The survey was specifically targeted at international groups, focusing primarily on Russian and English-speaking clinicians and scientific researchers.

Statistics

The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize and interpret the responses.

Results

The survey was conducted in January 2024 with 180 unique and verified individuals participating. The results revealed that 1/3 of the respondents (60 individuals) agreed that including predictors such as nationality and immigration status is inappropriate in the current ML and AI models.

The results of this survey are openly accessible on the official Telegram Channel of the Web3 Society: ML in Health Science, which can be visited at https://t.me/MLinHS

Table 1 and Figure 1 summarize the survey results:

Table 1: Survey Results: Is the inclusion of predictors such as Nationality, Place of Birth, and Immigrant Status in AI and ML medical models ethical and consistent with contemporary scientific standards?

Figure 1: Survey Results. DALL E

Discussion

Practical standpoint

Our research indicates that a mere one-third of healthcare practitioners and researchers participating in the survey disagree with the categorization of individuals based on nationality in scientific and medical contexts. This finding emphasizes a concerning disconnect with the norms set by official regulators^{⁠8 ⁠9} and underscores the need for further research and possibly educational programs showcasing the prioritization of biological, natural, and environmental patterns over the data written in identity cards.

Limitations

The study's reliance on an anonymous methodology may introduce some uncertainty regarding the purity of the cohort and participant characteristics, which could impact the robustness and generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the fact that only one-third of respondents disagree with categorizing patients based on nationality is at odds with the standards set by official regulators. This discrepancy underscores the need for educational programs aimed at sensitizing the scientific community to prioritize biological predictors over data documented in passports or identity cards.

Conflict of Interest: YR and VR state that no conflict of interest exists.

Authorship: YR: Concept, data analysis, original draft, survey. YR, VR: Review and editing.