Search for: All records

The spread of infectious diseases is a highly complex spatiotemporal process, difficult to understand, predict, and effectively respond to. Machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) have achieved impressive results in other learning and prediction tasks; however, while many AI solutions are developed for disease prediction, only a few of them are adopted by decision-makers to support policy interventions. Among several issues preventing their uptake, AI methods are known to amplify the bias in the data they are trained on. This is especially problematic for infectious disease models that typically leverage large, open, and inherently biased spatiotemporal data. These biases may propagate through the modeling pipeline to decision-making, resulting in inequitable policy interventions. Therefore, there is a need to gain an understanding of how the AI disease modeling pipeline can mitigate biased input data, in-processing models, and biased outputs. Specifically, our vision is to develop a large-scale micro-simulation of individuals from which human mobility, population, and disease ground-truth data can be obtained. From this complete dataset—which may not reflect the real world—we can sample and inject different types of bias. By using the sampled data in which bias is known (as it is given as the simulation parameter), we can explore how existing solutions for fairness in AI can mitigate and correct these biases and investigate novel AI fairness solutions. Achieving this vision would result in improved trust in such models for informing fair and equitable policy interventions. 

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.