Back

AI-readiness for Biomedical Data: Bridge2AI Recommendations

Clark, T.; Caufield, H.; Mohan, J. A.; Al Manir, S.; Amorim, E.; Eddy, J.; Gim, N.; Gow, B.; Goar, W.; Haendel, M.; Hansen, J. N.; Harris, N.; Hermjakob, H.; McWeeney, S. K.; Nebeker, C.; Nikolov, M.; Shaffer, J.; Sheffield, N.; Sheynkman, G.; Stevenson, J.; Mungall, C.; Chen, J. Y.; Wagner, A.; Kong, S. W.; Ghosh, S. S.; Patel, B.; Williams, A.; Munoz-Torres, M. C.

2024-10-25 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.10.23.619844 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Biomedical research and clinical practice are in the midst of a transition toward significantly increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods. These advances promise to enable qualitatively deeper insight into complex challenges formerly beyond the reach of analytic methods and human intuition while placing increased demands on ethical and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), given the opaque nature of many deep learning methods. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has initiated a significant research and development program, Bridge2AI, aimed at producing new "flagship" datasets designed to support AI/ML analysis of complex biomedical challenges, elucidate best practices, develop tools and standards in AI/ML data science, and disseminate these datasets, tools, and methods broadly to the biomedical community. An essential set of concepts to be developed and disseminated in this program along with the data and tools produced are criteria for AI-readiness of data, including critical considerations for XAI and ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of AI technologies. NIH Bridge to Artificial Intelligence (Bridge2AI) Standards Working Group members prepared this article to present methods for assessing the AI-readiness of biomedical data and the data standards perspectives and criteria we have developed throughout this program. While the field is rapidly evolving, these criteria are foundational for scientific rigor and the ethical design and application of biomedical AI methods.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
30.9%
2
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.4%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.3%
4
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.2%
6
Database
61 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
7
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
9
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
12
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.0%
13
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
14
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
15
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
16
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
17
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
21
Nature Protocols
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
22
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%