OBJECTIVES: In 2023, AMIA's Inclusive Language and Context Style Guidelines (the "Guidelines") were approved by the Board of Directors and made a publicly available resource. This work began in 2021 through AMIA's DEI Task Force and subsequent DEI Committee; many members provided input, feedback, and time to create the Guidelines. In this paper, the authors provide a transparent account of the origin, development, contents, and dissemination of the Guidelines and share plans for their future development and use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our approach to drafting, refining, and distributing the Guidelines included consulting existing language guides, AMIA member reviews, external expert reviews, webinars, and workshops. Through an iterative approach to drafting and refining the Guidelines, the authors consulted relevant language guidelines and many experts throughout and beyond the AMIA community. RESULTS: The Inclusive Language Context Guidelines were formally approved by the AMIA Board of Directors on February 15, 2023. The Guidelines included four principles to be considered in scientific communications: Plurality, Precision, Transparency, and Destigmatization. DISCUSSION: A moment of vulnerability where an AMIA member raised concerns about the use of harmful language during a presentation resulted in the creation of a principled approach to support inclusive language within biomedical and health informatics communications. We envision that the Guidelines will support health equity by challenging dominant public narratives around health, fostering stronger interdisciplinary collaboration and critical thinking about the impact of language, and creating a more welcoming environment for the broader AMIA community. This work could not have been completed without the support of many AMIA members and other researchers in biomedical and health informatics. The Guidelines are a living document that will continue to be updated with input and feedback from the AMIA community into the future.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to ascertain perceived factors affecting women's career development efforts in the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) and to provide recommendations for improvements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected using a 27-item survey administered via the AMIA newsletter and other social channels. Survey questions comprised 3 demographics, 15 Likert-scale, and 9 open-ended items. Likert-scale responses were summarized across respondent ages, career stages, and career domains, and open-ended responses were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: We received survey responses from 109 AMIA women members. Our findings demonstrate that AMIA had made strides in promoting career development, and the most effective AMIA efforts included social events (83%), panel discussions (80%), and scientific sessions (79%). However, despite these efforts, women members perceived that gender-specific challenges persisted within AMIA, and recognized the need for increased networking opportunities (96%), raising awareness of gender-specific challenges (95%), and encouraging gender proportional representation in leadership (92%). DISCUSSION: International and national biomedical informatics professional communities have put forth efforts to address gender-specific issues in career development. Yet, our study identified that some of these, including the deep-rooted gender power hierarchy and bias, are still perceived as profound in AMIA. CONCLUSION: Even though existing career development efforts for women are highly effective, important perceived gender-specific career development issues require further attention and investigation to improve existing AMIA activities.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to describe the literature related to the development of methods for auditing the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), with particular attention to identifying errors and inconsistencies of attributes of the concepts in the UMLS Metathesaurus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach by searching the MEDLINE database and Google Scholar for studies referencing the UMLS and any of several terms related to auditing, error detection, and quality assurance. A qualitative analysis and summarization of articles that met inclusion criteria were performed. RESULTS: Eighty-three studies were reviewed in detail. We first categorized techniques based on various aspects including concepts, concept names, and synonymy (n = 37), semantic type assignments (n = 36), hierarchical relationships (n = 24), lateral relationships (n = 12), ontology enrichment (n = 8), and ontology alignment (n = 18). We also categorized the methods according to their level of automation (ie, automated systematic, automated heuristic, or manual) and the type of knowledge used (ie, intrinsic or extrinsic knowledge). CONCLUSIONS: This study is a comprehensive review of the published methods for auditing the various conceptual aspects of the UMLS. Categorizing the auditing techniques according to the various aspects will enable the curators of the UMLS as well as researchers comprehensive easy access to this wealth of knowledge (eg, for auditing lateral relationships in the UMLS). We also reviewed ontology enrichment and alignment techniques due to their critical use of and impact on the UMLS.