Summary for pulse oximetry recommendations.

BackgroundIn light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities.ApproachMechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations.ConclusionsMany of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.</div

Adhesion of EEG electrodes at the surface of the scalp on areas with and without cornrows.

Adhesion of EEG electrodes at the surface of the scalp on areas with and without cornrows.</p

Impact of inherent factors versus exposure on lung function.

The first graph notes that intrinsic lung function is affected by age and height. From birth, our lungs grow until our mid-30s, after which they slowly decline over time. Lung growth is affected by other factors than age. Height directly affects lung volume, as it ties into overall chest cavity volume. Sex similarly affects chest cavity volume. Race and ethnicity may be associated. Finally, “maximum potential” lung function is altered by exposure to air pollution, secondhand smoke, and lower respiratory tract infection: they would either reduce maximal potential (if experienced early in life) or increase the rate of decline (if experienced after maximal growth has occurred).</p

Summary for PFT recommendations.

BackgroundIn light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities.ApproachMechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations.ConclusionsMany of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.</div

Recommendations as per AHRQ levels of evidence [89].

Recommendations as per AHRQ levels of evidence [89].</p

Summary for electroencephalogram recommendations.

BackgroundIn light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities.ApproachMechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations.ConclusionsMany of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.</div

Differential light absorption as a function of melanin levels and skin thickness.

Alone or in combination, these factors can alter the performance of medical devices relying on red and/or infrared light. NCIT, non-contact infrared thermometry.</p

Summary for OCT and HVF testing recommendations.

BackgroundIn light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities.ApproachMechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations.ConclusionsMany of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.</div

Summary for NCIT recommendations.

BackgroundIn light of recent retrospective studies revealing evidence of disparities in access to medical technology and of bias in measurements, this narrative review assesses digital determinants of health (DDoH) in both technologies and medical formulae that demonstrate either evidence of bias or suboptimal performance, identifies potential mechanisms behind such bias, and proposes potential methods or avenues that can guide future efforts to address these disparities.ApproachMechanisms are broadly grouped into physical and biological biases (e.g., pulse oximetry, non-contact infrared thermometry [NCIT]), interaction of human factors and cultural practices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]), and interpretation bias (e.g, pulmonary function tests [PFT], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and Humphrey visual field [HVF] testing). This review scope specifically excludes technologies incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning. For each technology, we identify both clinical and research recommendations.ConclusionsMany of the DDoH mechanisms encountered in medical technologies and formulae result in lower accuracy or lower validity when applied to patients outside the initial scope of development or validation. Our clinical recommendations caution clinical users in completely trusting result validity and suggest correlating with other measurement modalities robust to the DDoH mechanism (e.g., arterial blood gas for pulse oximetry, core temperatures for NCIT). Our research recommendations suggest not only increasing diversity in development and validation, but also awareness in the modalities of diversity required (e.g., skin pigmentation for pulse oximetry but skin pigmentation and sex/hormonal variation for NCIT). By increasing diversity that better reflects patients in all scenarios of use, we can mitigate DDoH mechanisms and increase trust and validity in clinical practice and research.</div

This figure describes the discrepancy between NCIT and reference TAT measurements.

Source: Data from [31] Khan and colleagues, Comparative accuracy testing of non-contact infrared thermometers and temporal artery thermometers in an adult hospital setting. Am J Infect Control. 2021. NCIT, non-contact infrared thermometry; TAT, temporal artery thermometer.</p