11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Call to Action on Assessing and Mitigating Bias in Artificial Intelligence Applications for Mental Health

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Advances in computer science and data-analytic methods are driving a new era in mental health research and application. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies hold the potential to enhance the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of people experiencing mental health problems and to increase the reach and impact of mental health care. However, AI applications will not mitigate mental health disparities if they are built from historical data that reflect underlying social biases and inequities. AI models biased against sensitive classes could reinforce and even perpetuate existing inequities if these models create legacies that differentially impact who is diagnosed and treated, and how effectively. The current article reviews the health-equity implications of applying AI to mental health problems, outlines state-of-the-art methods for assessing and mitigating algorithmic bias, and presents a call to action to guide the development of fair-aware AI in psychological science.

          Related collections

          Most cited references197

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            null

            null (2016)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The weirdest people in the world?

              Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Perspectives on Psychological Science
                Perspect Psychol Sci
                SAGE Publications
                1745-6916
                1745-6924
                September 2023
                December 09 2022
                September 2023
                : 18
                : 5
                : 1062-1096
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin Institute for Mental Health Research
                [2 ]Colliga Apps Corporation, Austin, Texas
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, Florida International University
                [4 ]Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Texas A&M University
                [5 ]Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
                [6 ]Center for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                Article
                10.1177/17456916221134490
                36490369
                24be143b-1731-4678-9791-d390bfa5744d
                © 2023

                http://www.sagepub.com/licence-information-for-chorus

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article