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.

Open discussions of social justice and health inequities may be an uncommon focus within information technology science, business, and health care delivery partnerships. However, the COVID-19 pandemic-which disproportionately affected Black, indigenous, and people of color-has reinforced the need to examine and define roles that technology partners should play to lead anti-racism efforts through our work. In our perspective piece, we describe the imperative to prioritize TechQuity-equity and social justice as a technology business strategy-through collaborating in partnerships that focus on eliminating racial and social inequities.

OBJECTIVE: IBM(R) Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) that provides evidence-informed therapeutic options to cancer-treating clinicians. A panel of experienced oncologists compared CDSS treatment options to treatment decisions made by clinicians to characterize the quality of CDSS therapeutic options and decisions made in practice. METHODS: This study included patients treated between 1/2017 and 7/2018 for breast, colon, lung, and rectal cancers at Bumrungrad International Hospital (BIH), Thailand. Treatments selected by clinicians were paired with therapeutic options presented by the CDSS and coded to mask the origin of options presented. The panel rated the acceptability of each treatment in the pair by consensus, with acceptability defined as compliant with BIH's institutional practices. Descriptive statistics characterized the study population and treatment-decision evaluations by cancer type and stage. RESULTS: Nearly 60% (187) of 313 treatment pairs for breast, lung, colon, and rectal cancers were identical or equally acceptable, with 70% (219) of WfO therapeutic options identical to, or acceptable alternatives to, BIH therapy. In 30% of cases (94), 1 or both treatment options were rated as unacceptable. Of 32 cases where both WfO and BIH options were acceptable, WfO was preferred in 18 cases and BIH in 14 cases. Colorectal cancers exhibited the highest proportion of identical or equally acceptable treatments; stage IV cancers demonstrated the lowest. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a system designed in the US to support, rather than replace, cancer-treating clinicians provides therapeutic options which are generally consistent with recommendations from oncologists outside the US.