Abstract
Policy epidemiology utilizes human subject-matter experts (SMEs) to systematically surface, analyze, and categorize legally-enforceable policies. The Analysis and Mapping of Policies for Emerging Infectious Diseases project systematically collects and assesses health-related policies from all United Nations Member States. The recent proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools powered by large language models have led to suggestions that such technologies be incorporated into our project and similar research efforts to decrease the human resources required. To test the accuracy and precision of GAI in identifying and interpreting health policies, we designed a study to systematically assess the responses produced by a GAI tool versus those produced by a SME.
We used two validated policy datasets, on emergency and childhood vaccination policy and quarantine and isolation policy in each United Nations Member State. We found that the SME and GAI tool were concordant 78.09% and 67.01% of the time respectively. It also significantly hastened the data collection processes.
However, our analysis of non-concordant results revealed systematic inaccuracies and imprecision across different World Health Organization regions. Regarding vaccination, over 50% of countries in the African, Southeast Asian, and Eastern Mediterranean regions were inaccurately represented in GAI responses. This trend was similar for quarantine and isolation, with the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions least concordant. Furthermore, GAI responses only provided laws or information missed by the SME 2.14% and 2.48% of the time for the vaccination dataset and for the quarantine and isolation dataset, respectively. Notably, the GAI was least concordant with the SME when tasked with policy interpretation.
These results suggest that GAI tools require further development to accurately identify policies across diverse global regions and interpret context-specific information. However, we found that GAI is a useful tool for quality assurance and quality control processes in health policy identification.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Given the nature of this study, there was no involvement of patients or the public and therefore no oversight or approval was required for this project.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data is available in a public open access repository. Data can be found on GitHub at https://github.com/cghss/AI_policy_epi
