Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Authors:
Renee Shelby,
Shalaleh Rismani,
Kathryn Henne,
AJung Moon,
Negar Rostamzadeh,
Paul Nicholas,
N'Mah Yilla,
Jess Gallegos,
Andrew Smart,
Emilio Garcia,
Gurleen Virk
Abstract:
Understanding the landscape of potential harms from algorithmic systems enables practitioners to better anticipate consequences of the systems they build. It also supports the prospect of incorporating controls to help minimize harms that emerge from the interplay of technologies and social and cultural dynamics. A growing body of scholarship has identified a wide range of harms across different a…
▽ More
Understanding the landscape of potential harms from algorithmic systems enables practitioners to better anticipate consequences of the systems they build. It also supports the prospect of incorporating controls to help minimize harms that emerge from the interplay of technologies and social and cultural dynamics. A growing body of scholarship has identified a wide range of harms across different algorithmic technologies. However, computing research and practitioners lack a high level and synthesized overview of harms from algorithmic systems. Based on a scoping review of computing research $(n=172)$, we present an applied taxonomy of sociotechnical harms to support a more systematic surfacing of potential harms in algorithmic systems. The final taxonomy builds on and refers to existing taxonomies, classifications, and terminologies. Five major themes related to sociotechnical harms - representational, allocative, quality-of-service, interpersonal harms, and social system/societal harms - and sub-themes are presented along with a description of these categories. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities for future research.
△ Less
Submitted 18 July, 2023; v1 submitted 11 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
A deep learning system for differential diagnosis of skin diseases
Authors:
Yuan Liu,
Ayush Jain,
Clara Eng,
David H. Way,
Kang Lee,
Peggy Bui,
Kimberly Kanada,
Guilherme de Oliveira Marinho,
Jessica Gallegos,
Sara Gabriele,
Vishakha Gupta,
Nalini Singh,
Vivek Natarajan,
Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof,
Greg S. Corrado,
Lily H. Peng,
Dale R. Webster,
Dennis Ai,
Susan Huang,
Yun Liu,
R. Carter Dunn,
David Coz
Abstract:
Skin conditions affect an estimated 1.9 billion people worldwide. A shortage of dermatologists causes long wait times and leads patients to seek dermatologic care from general practitioners. However, the diagnostic accuracy of general practitioners has been reported to be only 0.24-0.70 (compared to 0.77-0.96 for dermatologists), resulting in referral errors, delays in care, and errors in diagnosi…
▽ More
Skin conditions affect an estimated 1.9 billion people worldwide. A shortage of dermatologists causes long wait times and leads patients to seek dermatologic care from general practitioners. However, the diagnostic accuracy of general practitioners has been reported to be only 0.24-0.70 (compared to 0.77-0.96 for dermatologists), resulting in referral errors, delays in care, and errors in diagnosis and treatment. In this paper, we developed a deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions for clinical cases (skin photographs and associated medical histories). The DLS distinguishes between 26 skin conditions that represent roughly 80% of the volume of skin conditions seen in primary care. The DLS was developed and validated using de-identified cases from a teledermatology practice serving 17 clinical sites via a temporal split: the first 14,021 cases for development and the last 3,756 cases for validation. On the validation set, where a panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard for every case, the DLS achieved 0.71 and 0.93 top-1 and top-3 accuracies respectively. For a random subset of the validation set (n=963 cases), 18 clinicians reviewed the cases for comparison. On this subset, the DLS achieved a 0.67 top-1 accuracy, non-inferior to board-certified dermatologists (0.63, p<0.001), and higher than primary care physicians (PCPs, 0.45) and nurse practitioners (NPs, 0.41). The top-3 accuracy showed a similar trend: 0.90 DLS, 0.75 dermatologists, 0.60 PCPs, and 0.55 NPs. These results highlight the potential of the DLS to augment general practitioners to accurately diagnose skin conditions by suggesting differential diagnoses that may not have been considered. Future work will be needed to prospectively assess the clinical impact of using this tool in actual clinical workflows.
△ Less
Submitted 11 September, 2019;
originally announced September 2019.
