Impact on Public Health Decision Making by Utilizing Big Data Without Domain Knowledge

TL;DR

This study examines the use of big data, specifically street view imagery and health data from NYC, to inform public health decisions, highlighting challenges of data bias and robustness in AI-driven analysis.

Contribution

It demonstrates the limitations of using street view imagery for health-related built environment assessments and introduces a causal framework to evaluate intervention impacts.

Findings

Built environment features inferred from GSV may not align with ground truth.

Physical inactivity mediates the impact of environment features on health.

Targeted interventions based on robust analysis can significantly reduce obesity and diabetes prevalence.

Abstract

New data sources, and artificial intelligence (AI) methods to extract information from them are becoming plentiful, and relevant to decision making in many societal applications. An important example is street view imagery, available in over 100 countries, and considered for applications such as assessing built environment aspects in relation to community health outcomes. Relevant to such uses, important examples of bias in the use of AI are evident when decision-making based on data fails to account for the robustness of the data, or predictions are based on spurious correlations. To study this risk, we utilize 2.02 million GSV images along with health, demographic, and socioeconomic data from New York City. Initially, we demonstrate that built environment characteristics inferred from GSV labels at the intra-city level may exhibit inadequate alignment with the ground truth. We also find that the average individual-level behavior of physical inactivity significantly mediates the impact of built environment features by census tract, as measured through GSV. Finally, using a causal framework which accounts for these mediators of environmental impacts on health, we find that altering 10% of samples in the two lowest tertiles would result in a 4.17 (95% CI 3.84 to 4.55) or 17.2 (95% CI 14.4 to 21.3) times bigger decrease on the prevalence of obesity or diabetes, than the same proportional intervention on the number of crosswalks by census tract. This work illustrates important issues of robustness and model specification for informing effective allocation of interventions using new data sources.