Search for: All records

BackgroundIn light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities. ApproachMechanisms are broadly grouped intophysical and biological biases(e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]),interaction of human factors and cultural practices(e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), andinterpretation bias(e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations. ConclusionsMany of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research. 

Abstract The bulk of social neuroscience takes a ‘stimulus-brain’ approach, typically comparing brain responses to different types of social stimuli, but most of the time in the absence of direct social interaction. Over the last two decades, a growing number of researchers have adopted a ‘brain-to-brain’ approach, exploring similarities between brain patterns across participants as a novel way to gain insight into the social brain. This methodological shift has facilitated the introduction of naturalistic social stimuli into the study design (e.g. movies) and, crucially, has spurred the development of new tools to directly study social interaction, both in controlled experimental settings and in more ecologically valid environments. Specifically, ‘hyperscanning’ setups, which allow the simultaneous recording of brain activity from two or more individuals during social tasks, has gained popularity in recent years. However, currently, there is no agreed-upon approach to carry out such ‘inter-brain connectivity analysis’, resulting in a scattered landscape of analysis techniques. To accommodate a growing demand to standardize analysis approaches in this fast-growing research field, we have developed Hyperscanning Python Pipeline, a comprehensive and easy open-source software package that allows (social) neuroscientists to carry-out and to interpret inter-brain connectivity analyses.