Abstract
A bias in health research to favor understanding of diseases as they present in men can have a grave impact on the health of women. This paper reports on a conceptual review of the literature that used machine learning or NLP techniques to interrogate big data for identifying sex-specific health disparities. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in October 2021 using synonyms and indexing terms for (1) “women” or “men” or “sex,” (2) “big data” or “artificial intelligence” or “NLP”, and (3) “disparities” or “differences.” From 902 records, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results demonstrate that the inclusion by sex is inconsistent and often unreported, although the inclusion of men in the included studies is disproportionately less than women. Even though AI and NLP techniques are widely applied in health research, few studies use them to take advantage of unstructured text to investigate sex-related differences or disparities. Researchers are increasingly aware of sex-based data bias, but the process towards correction is slow. We reflected on what would be the best practices on using big data analytics to address sex-specific biases in understanding the etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis of diseases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Dr. Stevens was supported in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) of the National Institutes of Health under award number R21DA049572 - 01.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
email: su.golder{at}york.ac.uk
email: [karoc{at}pennmedicine.upenn.edu, gragon{at}pennmedicine.upenn.edu]
email: [yunwenwa{at}usc.edu, robinste{at}usc.edu]
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
