Cited by 2Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Building models, building capacity: A review of participatory machine learning for HIV prevention

Open access
Sendak, Mark, Young, Meg, Kim, Jee Young, Hasan, Alifia, Kelsey, Clare, O’Neal, Catherine, Jagneaux, Tonya, Wilbright, Wayne +9 more·2025·PLOS Global Public Health

Abstract

A growing number of researchers and practitioners are embracing a “participatory turn” in machine learning (ML) to improve model development, prevent harm, and provide communities more influence over systems that impact them. In this paper, we explore the intersection of participatory practices in healthcare and the emerging focus on responsible AI with a focus on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care. We review the historical context of participation in HIV treatment and prevention, emphasizing how patient activism has shaped practices in this field. We then review participatory ML in HIV prevention and present a brief case study of a project designed to identify candidates for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Louisiana. The review highlights the essential steps in conducting participatory ML. Finally, we draw lessons for future participatory ML projects, underscoring the importance of long-term collaboration, responsiveness to partner feedback, and the crucial role of capacity-building for individuals and organizations. Effective participation requires substantial resources and investment, which supports overall project goals beyond mere improvements in model performance. We also draw lessons for advancing the participatory ML field, including (1) the impact of funding mandates on fostering effective engagement; (2) the need to scale participatory processes rather than just technologies; and (3) the need for genuine participation to allow flexibility in project plans, timelines, and shifts in institutional power dynamics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003862

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Qualitative methods are widely used to explore stakeholders' experiences, challenges, and needs in the adoption of AI.

    “Qualitative methods are widely used to explore stakeholders’ experiences, challenges, and needs in the adoption of AI37–39.”

    From Establishing organizational AI governance in healthcare: a case study in Canada (2025) · cites this paper as [39]

    Section 2.3 describes focus groups examining patients’ views of an HIV-prediction AI system and clinicians’ concerns about its implementation. The HEROIC case study in section 2.4 also reports interviews about workflow and implementation needs. These examples support the use of qualitative methods for that purpose, but do not establish that they are widely used across AI adoption generally. The indexed copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [51]Gilman ME. Democratizing AI: Principles for meaningful public participation [Internet]. Data & Society. 2023 Sep 27. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4628755

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sendak, M., Young, M., Kim, J. Y., Hasan, A., Kelsey, C., O’Neal, C., Jagneaux, T., Wilbright, W., Couk, J., Lim, S., Davenport, T., Lolis, S., Thomas, J., Widman, S., Balu, S., Clement, M., & Okeke, L.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Data & Society Research Institute (US)
  • Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Jee Young
Venue
PLOS Global Public Health
Published
2025-06-04
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
e0003862
ISSN
2767-3375 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411022086
Cited by
2
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLOS Global Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (5R01AI169641)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
HIV prevention, pre-exposure prophylaxis, responsible AI, patient activism, capacity building, community participation, health equity, Louisiana, power relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review