Evaluating generative artificial intelligences limitations in health policy identification and interpretation
Wilson, R.; Weets, C.; Rosner, A.; Katz, R.
Show 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.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Prioritizing countries for TB vaccine readiness research using a global stakeholder-centric approach 94%
- How does policy modelling work in practice? A global analysis on the use of epidemiological modelling in health crises 93%
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy beliefs in Togo: Findings from two cross-sectional surveys 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Vaccine confidence and timeliness of childhood immunisation by health information source, maternal, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics in Albania 93%
- Comparative analysis of policies and programs to support families and children during COVID-19 92%
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: A longitudinal household cross-sectional study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Public opinion on global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines: evidence from two nationally representative surveys in Germany and the United States 93%
- The connection between COVID-19 vaccine abundance, vaccination coverage, and public trust in government across the globe 93%
- COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its socio-demographic and emotional determinants: a multi-country cross-sectional study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.