Latest generative AI in healthcare has opened up numerous possibilities for innovation, from auto charting with ambient tech, Genomic data analysis and virtual health assistants. A specific use is an AI-powered medical interpreter that can assist with healthcare accessibility for non-English speaking patients.

As with many other AI applications in healthcare, the topic of bias is relevant. However - we believe that the right framing in this task is accuracy and not bias - and let’s dive into this distinction.

Understanding Bias in Healthcare AI

Bias in healthcare AI typically refers to systematic errors or unfair outcomes among different patient groups. These biases could be related to different categories, among them:

1. Data related biases (selection bias, representation bias)
2. Algorithm related biases (design bias, optimization bias)
3. Model related biases (underfitting/overfitting)
4. Evaluation related biases (benchmark bias)
5. Demographic related biases (racial/ethnic, gender, age, socioeconomic bias)

The Spectrum of AI Tasks: Open-ended vs. Close-ended

To understand why AI medical interpreting might be different, we need to consider the spectrum of AI tasks:

1. Close-ended tasks: These have specific inputs and outputs with a "definite" answer. For example, an AI system that determines whether a cat is present in an image (Yes/No output).
   
   
2. Open-ended tasks: These are often associated with generative AI, where inputs and outputs are less constrained. An example would be an AI system engaging in open-ended Q&A with patients about their symptoms.

Seems like AI medical interpreting falls into the category of close-ended tasks. The input (speech in language X) and output (interpreted speech in language Y) are well-defined. While there are nuances such as dialects, cultural context, and specialized medical terminology, the fundamental task remains bounded and specific.

From Bias to Accuracy

Given the close-ended nature of AI medical interpreting, we argue that the primary concern should be accuracy rather than bias. Here's why:

1. Measurable outcomes: In medical interpreting, we can directly measure whether a sentence was interpreted correctly. This allows for clear, quantifiable assessment of performance.
2. Language-pair specificity: Performance can be evaluated for each language pair independently. For instance, an AI interpreter might excel at English-Spanish translation but struggle with English-Khmer.
3. Transparent limitations: Unlike open-ended tasks where biases might be subtle and hard to detect, the limitations of an AI medical interpreter are clear and tied to specific language pairs.
4. Elective deployment: Healthcare providers can choose to use AI interpreting for language pairs where it demonstrates high accuracy while relying on human interpreters for others.

The Accuracy Challenge

We should assume that accuracy levels will vary across language pairs (primarily due to differences in available training data). More commonly spoken languages like Spanish or Mandarin may see higher accuracy rates than less common languages or dialects.

However, this variation in accuracy is not the same as bias. Instead, it reflects the current state of the technology and the availability of language resources. As more data becomes available and AI technologies improve, we can expect to see accuracy increase across a wider range of languages.

In a sense - by focusing on improving accuracy in our case, we can achieve less healthcare bias.

Ethical Considerations

While framing AI medical interpreting as an accuracy challenge rather than a bias issue, we must still consider the ethical implications:

1. Transparency: Healthcare providers and patients should be informed about the accuracy levels for different language pairs.
2. Continuous improvement: Efforts should be made to improve accuracy across all languages, particularly for underserved communities.

Conclusion

In the AI medical interpreting space, the primary focus should be on improving accuracy across all language pairs rather than addressing bias. By recognizing this distinction, we can better direct our efforts towards developing and implementing AI interpreting systems that truly enhance healthcare accessibility for all language speakers.

‍