Back

PREFER-IT: A transdisciplinary co-created framework to realise inclusive medical AI

Pita Ferreira, P.; Soriano Longaron, S.; Bouisaghouane, W.; Goris, J.; H. Hoekman, A.; Markos, B.; Maus, B.; Pozzi, G.; Hasan, H.; Kalinauskaite, I.; Stunt, J.; D. Kist, J.; van der Elst, J.; Maguet, K.; Ziegfeld, L.; Cuypers, M.; Milota, M.; Habets, M.; Colombo, S.; Petric, S.; Groefsema, S.; Warmelink, S.; Daae, E.; Briganti, G.; Vajda, I.; Valdenegro-Toro, M.; Braun, M.; Jeekel, P.; Goosen, S.; Schepel, A.; Ester, L.; Kuzee, R.; de Klerk, S.; Lamoth, C.; Ballard, L.; Plantinga, M.

2025-11-06 health informatics
10.1101/2025.11.03.25339443 medRxiv
Show abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare holds transformative potential but risks exacerbating existing health disparities if inclusivity is not explicitly accounted for. This study addresses the disconnected discussions on inclusive medical AI by developing a comprehensive framework, PREFER-IT. This framework is based on the outcomes of a five-day transdisciplinary co-creation workshop that involved 37 experts from diverse backgrounds, including healthcare, ethics, law, social sciences, AI, and patient advocacy. For this workshop, we used design thinking and participatory methodologies to develop a framework for realising inclusive medical AI. We identified three key challenges for realising inclusive medical AI: integrating the lived experiences and stakeholder voices across the AI lifecycle, designing data collection practices that promote fairness and prevent inequalities, and fostering regulatory frameworks to uphold human rights and promote inclusivity. The analysis of participants perspectives informed the development of eight key thematic clusters of PREFER-IT: Participatory and co-design approaches (P), Representative and diverse data (R), Education and digital literacy (E), Fairness (F), Ethical and legal accountability (E), Real-world validation and feedback (R), Inclusive communication (I), and Technical interoperability (T). These elements were mapped across structural layers of AI (humans, data, system, process, and governance) and the AI lifecycle to guide inclusive design, development, validation, implementation, monitoring, and governance. This framework fosters stakeholder engagement and systemic change, positioning inclusion as a guiding principle in practice. PREFER-IT offers a practical and conceptual contribution for how to include ethical, legal and societal aspects when aiming to foster responsible and inclusive AI in healthcare. Author SummaryArtificial intelligence (AI) is being used more and more in healthcare to improve diagnosis, treatment, and personalised care. However, if not designed carefully, these technologies can unintentionally increase existing inequalities and exclude certain groups from their benefits. In our study, we brought together experts from healthcare, ethics, law, social sciences, and patient advocacy to explore how AI in medicine can be made more inclusive. Over five days, we worked together to identify key issues and come up with practical solutions. We focused on three main areas: 1) Ensuring diverse voices are heard during the development of AI tools; 2) Making data collection fair and representative; and 3) Creating regulations that protect human rights. From the discussions of the workshop, we created the PREFER-IT framework, which outlines eight key principles for inclusive AI: O_LIParticipatory and co-design approaches C_LIO_LIRepresentative and diverse data C_LIO_LIEducation and digital literacy C_LIO_LIFairness C_LIO_LIEthical and legal accountability C_LIO_LIReal-world validation and feedback C_LIO_LIInclusive communication C_LIO_LITechnical interoperability C_LI This framework helps guide developers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals in creating AI systems that are not only effective but also fair and respectful of all users. Our work emphasises the importance of involving patients and communities in shaping the future of AI.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
12.3%
4
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
6
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.3%
7
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
9
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
10
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
12
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
13
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
15
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.5%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.2%
18
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
25
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%