The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review

Recent Outcomes and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning in Neurosurgery

Neurosurgeons receive extensive technical training, which equips them with the knowledge and skills to specialise in various fields and manage the massive amounts of information and decision-making required throughout the various stages of neurosurgery, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care and recovery. Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI) has become more useful in neurosurgery. AI has the potential to improve patient outcomes by augmenting the capabilities of neurosurgeons and ultimately improving diagnostic and prognostic outcomes as well as decision-making during surgical procedures. By incorporating AI into both interventional and non-interventional therapies, neurosurgeons may provide the best care for their patients. AI, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) have made significant progress in the field of neurosurgery. These cutting-edge methods have enhanced patient outcomes, reduced complications, and improved surgical planning.

Engaging Youth Voice and Family Partnerships to Improve Children's Mental Health Outcomes

Promoting active participation of families and youth in mental health systems of care is the cornerstone of creating a more inclusive, effective, and responsive care network. This article focuses on the inclusion of parent and youth voice in transforming our mental health care system to promote increased engagement at all levels of service delivery. Youth and parent peer support delivery models, digital innovation, and technology not only empower the individuals involved, but also have the potential to enhance the overall efficacy of the mental health care system.

What Are Humans Doing in the Loop? Co-Reasoning and Practical Judgment When Using Machine Learning-Driven Decision Aids

Within the ethical debate on Machine Learning-driven decision support systems (ML_CDSS), notions such as "human in the loop" or "meaningful human control" are often cited as being necessary for ethical legitimacy. In addition, ethical principles usually serve as the major point of reference in ethical guidance documents, stating that conflicts between principles need to be weighed and balanced against each other. Starting from a neo-Kantian viewpoint inspired by Onora O'Neill, this article makes a concrete suggestion of how to interpret the role of the "human in the loop" and to overcome the perspective of rivaling ethical principles in the evaluation of AI in health care. We argue that patients should be perceived as "fellow workers" and epistemic partners in the interpretation of ML_CDSS outputs. We further highlight that a meaningful process of integrating (rather than weighing and balancing) ethical principles is most appropriate in the evaluation of medical AI.

Ethical Incorporation of Artificial Intelligence into Neurosurgery: A Generative Pretrained Transformer Chatbot-Based, Human-Modified Approach

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly used in neurosurgery. Generative pretrained transformers (GPTs) have been of particular interest. However, ethical concerns regarding the incorporation of AI into the field remain underexplored. We delineate key ethical considerations using a novel GPT-based, human-modified approach, synthesize the most common considerations, and present an ethical framework for the involvement of AI in neurosurgery.

METHODS

GPT-4, ChatGPT, Bing Chat/Copilot, You, Perplexity.ai, and Google Bard were queried with the prompt "How can artificial intelligence be ethically incorporated into neurosurgery?". Then, a layered GPT-based thematic analysis was performed. The authors synthesized the results into considerations for the ethical incorporation of AI into neurosurgery. Separate Pareto analyses with 20% threshold and 10% threshold were conducted to determine salient themes. The authors refined these salient themes.

RESULTS

Twelve key ethical considerations focusing on stakeholders, clinical implementation, and governance were identified. Refinement of the Pareto analysis of the top 20% most salient themes in the aggregated GPT outputs yielded 10 key considerations. Additionally, from the top 10% most salient themes, 5 considerations were retrieved. An ethical framework for the use of AI in neurosurgery was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is critical to address the ethical considerations associated with the use of AI in neurosurgery. The framework described in this manuscript may facilitate the integration of AI into neurosurgery, benefitting both patients and neurosurgeons alike. We urge neurosurgeons to use AI only for validated purposes and caution against automatic adoption of its outputs without neurosurgeon interpretation.

Challenges and strategies for wide-scale artificial intelligence (AI) deployment in healthcare practices: A perspective for healthcare organizations

Healthcare organizations have realized that Artificial intelligence (AI) can provide a competitive edge through personalized patient experiences, improved patient outcomes, early diagnosis, augmented clinician capabilities, enhanced operational efficiencies, or improved medical service accessibility. However, deploying AI-driven tools in the healthcare ecosystem could be challenging. This paper categorizes AI applications in healthcare and comprehensively examines the challenges associated with deploying AI in medical practices at scale. As AI continues to make strides in healthcare, its integration presents various challenges, including production timelines, trust generation, privacy concerns, algorithmic biases, and data scarcity. The paper highlights that flawed business models and wrong workflows in healthcare practices cannot be rectified merely by deploying AI-driven tools. Healthcare organizations should re-evaluate root problems such as misaligned financial incentives (e.g., fee-for-service models), dysfunctional medical workflows (e.g., high rates of patient readmissions), poor care coordination between different providers, fragmented electronic health records systems, and inadequate patient education and engagement models in tandem with AI adoption. This study also explores the need for a cultural shift in viewing AI not as a threat but as an enabler that can enhance healthcare delivery and create new employment opportunities while emphasizing the importance of addressing underlying operational issues. The necessity of investments beyond finance is discussed, emphasizing the importance of human capital, continuous learning, and a supportive environment for AI integration. The paper also highlights the crucial role of clear regulations in building trust, ensuring safety, and guiding the ethical use of AI, calling for coherent frameworks addressing transparency, model accuracy, data quality control, liability, and ethics. Furthermore, this paper underscores the importance of advancing AI literacy within academia to prepare future healthcare professionals for an AI-driven landscape. Through careful navigation and proactive measures addressing these challenges, the healthcare community can harness AI's transformative power responsibly and effectively, revolutionizing healthcare delivery and patient care. The paper concludes with a vision and strategic suggestions for the future of healthcare with AI, emphasizing thoughtful, responsible, and innovative engagement as the pathway to realizing its full potential to unlock immense benefits for healthcare organizations, physicians, nurses, and patients while proactively mitigating risks.

Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review

This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot-test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full-text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot-test on a random sample of five relevant full-text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year.

AI and Aphasia in the Digital Age: A Critical Review

Aphasiology has a long and rich tradition of contributing to understanding how culture, language, and social environment contribute to brain development and function. Recent breakthroughs in AI can transform the role of aphasiology in the digital age by leveraging speech data in all languages to model how damage to specific brain regions impacts linguistic universals such as grammar. These tools, including generative AI (ChatGPT) and natural language processing (NLP) models, could also inform practitioners working with clinical populations in the assessment and treatment of aphasia using AI-based interventions such as personalized therapy and adaptive platforms. Although these possibilities have generated enthusiasm in aphasiology, a rigorous interrogation of their limitations is necessary before AI is integrated into practice. We explain the history and first principles of reciprocity between AI and aphasiology, highlighting how lesioning neural networks opened the black box of cognitive neurolinguistic processing. We then argue that when more data from aphasia across languages become digitized and available online, deep learning will reveal hitherto unreported patterns of language processing of theoretical interest for aphasiologists. We also anticipate some problems using AI, including language biases, cultural, ethical, and scientific limitations, a misrepresentation of marginalized languages, and a lack of rigorous validation of tools. However, as these challenges are met with better governance, AI could have an equitable impact.

Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias

Objectives

1.1Biases inherent in electronic health records (EHRs), and therefore in medical artificial intelligence (AI) models may significantly exacerbate health inequities and challenge the adoption of ethical and responsible AI in healthcare. Biases arise from multiple sources, some of which are not as documented in the literature. Biases are encoded in how the data has been collected and labeled, by implicit and unconscious biases of clinicians, or by the tools used for data processing. These biases and their encoding in healthcare records undermine the reliability of such data and bias clinical judgments and medical outcomes. Moreover, when healthcare records are used to build data-driven solutions, the biases are further exacerbated, resulting in systems that perpetuate biases and induce healthcare disparities. This literature scoping review aims to categorize the main sources of biases inherent in EHRs.

Methods

1.2We queried PubMed and Web of Science on January 19th, 2023, for peer-reviewed sources in English, published between 2016 and 2023, using the PRISMA approach to stepwise scoping of the literature. To select the papers that empirically analyze bias in EHR, from the initial yield of 430 papers, 27 duplicates were removed, and 403 studies were screened for eligibility. 196 articles were removed after the title and abstract screening, and 96 articles were excluded after the full-text review resulting in a final selection of 116 articles.

Results

1.3Systematic categorizations of diverse sources of bias are scarce in the literature, while the effects of separate studies are often convoluted and methodologically contestable. Our categorization of published empirical evidence identified the six main sources of bias: a) bias arising from past clinical trials; b) data-related biases arising from missing, incomplete information or poor labeling of data; human-related bias induced by c) implicit clinician bias, d) referral and admission bias; e) diagnosis or risk disparities bias and finally, (f) biases in machinery and algorithms.

Conclusions

1.4Machine learning and data-driven solutions can potentially transform healthcare delivery, but not without limitations. The core inputs in the systems (data and human factors) currently contain several sources of bias that are poorly documented and analyzed for remedies. The current evidence heavily focuses on data-related biases, while other sources are less often analyzed or anecdotal. However, these different sources of biases add to one another exponentially. Therefore, to understand the issues holistically we need to explore these diverse sources of bias. While racial biases in EHR have been often documented, other sources of biases have been less frequently investigated and documented (e.g. gender-related biases, sexual orientation discrimination, socially induced biases, and implicit, often unconscious, human-related cognitive biases). Moreover, some existing studies lack causal evidence, illustrating the different prevalences of disease across groups, which does not per se prove the causality. Our review shows that data-, human- and machine biases are prevalent in healthcare and they significantly impact healthcare outcomes and judgments and exacerbate disparities and differential treatment. Understanding how diverse biases affect AI systems and recommendations is critical. We suggest that researchers and medical personnel should develop safeguards and adopt data-driven solutions with a "bias-in-mind" approach. More empirical evidence is needed to tease out the effects of different sources of bias on health outcomes.

Justice at the Forefront: Cultivating felt accountability towards Artificial Intelligence among healthcare professionals

The advent of AI has ushered in a new era of patient care, but with it emerges a contentious debate surrounding accountability for algorithmic medical decisions. Within this discourse, a spectrum of views prevails, ranging from placing accountability on AI solution providers to laying it squarely on the shoulders of healthcare professionals. In response to this debate, this study, grounded in the mutualistic partner choice (MPC) model of the evolution of morality, seeks to establish a configurational framework for cultivating felt accountability towards AI among healthcare professionals. This framework underscores two pivotal conditions: AI ethics enactment and trusting belief in AI and considers the influence of organizational complexity in the implementation of this framework. Drawing on Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) of a sample of 401 healthcare professionals, this study reveals that a) focusing justice and autonomy in AI ethics enactment along with building trusting belief in AI reliability and functionality reinforces healthcare professionals' sense of felt accountability towards AI, b) fostering felt accountability towards AI necessitates ensuring the establishment of trust in its functionality for high complexity hospitals, and c) prioritizing justice in AI ethics enactment and trust in AI reliability is essential for low complexity hospitals.

Patients' Perceptions and Attitudes to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review

Breast cancer remains the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide, necessitating advancements in diagnostic methods. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into mammography has shown promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. However, understanding patient perspectives, particularly considering the psychological impact of breast cancer diagnoses, is crucial. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2000 to 2023 to examine breast cancer patients' attitudes towards AI in breast imaging, focusing on trust, acceptance, and demographic influences on these views. Methodologically, we employed a systematic literature search across databases such as PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Scopus, selecting studies that provided insights into patients' perceptions of AI in diagnostics. Our review included a sample of seven key studies after rigorous screening, reflecting varied patient trust and acceptance levels towards AI. Overall, we found a clear preference among patients for AI to augment rather than replace the diagnostic process, emphasizing the necessity of radiologists' expertise in conjunction with AI to enhance decision-making accuracy. This paper highlights the importance of aligning AI implementation in clinical settings with patient needs and expectations, emphasizing the need for human interaction in healthcare. Our findings advocate for a model where AI augments the diagnostic process, underlining the necessity for educational efforts to mitigate concerns and enhance patient trust in AI-enhanced diagnostics.

Thematic analysis of tools for health innovators and organisation leaders to develop digital health solutions fit for climate change

OBJECTIVES

While ethicists have largely underscored the risks raised by digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence (AI), limited research has addressed the need to also mitigate their environmental footprint and equip health innovators as well as organisation leaders to meet responsibility requirements that go beyond clinical safety, efficacy and ethics. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health framework, this qualitative study asks: (1) what are the practice-oriented tools available for innovators to develop environmentally sustainable digital solutions and (2) how are organisation leaders supposed to support them in this endeavour?

METHODS

Focusing on a subset of 34 tools identified through a comprehensive scoping review (health sciences, computer sciences, engineering and social sciences), our qualitative thematic analysis identifies and illustrates how two responsibility principles-environmental sustainability and organisational responsibility-are meant to be put in practice.

RESULTS

Guidance to make environmentally sustainable digital solutions is found in 11 tools whereas organisational responsibility is described in 33 tools. The former tools focus on reducing energy and materials consumption as well as pollution and waste production. The latter tools highlight executive roles for data risk management, data ethics and AI ethics. Only four tools translate environmental sustainability issues into tangible organisational responsibilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognising that key design and development decisions in the digital health industry are largely shaped by market considerations, this study indicates that significant work lies ahead for medical and organisation leaders to support the development of solutions fit for climate change.

Digital health technologies: Compounding the existing ethical challenges of the 'right' not to know

INTRODUCTION

Doctors hold a prima facie duty to respect the autonomy of their patients. This manifests as the patient's 'right' not to know when patients wish to remain unaware of medical information regarding their health, and poses ethical challenges for good medical practice. This paper explores how the emergence of digital health technologies might impact upon the patient's 'right' not to know.

METHOD

The capabilities of digital health technologies are surveyed and ethical implications of their effects on the 'right' not to know are explored.

FINDINGS

Digital health technologies are increasingly collecting, processing and presenting medical data as clinically useful information, which simultaneously presents large opportunities for improved health outcomes while compounding the existing ethical challenges generated by the patient's 'right' not to know.

CONCLUSION

These digital tools should be designed to include functionality that mitigates these ethical challenges, and allows the preservation of their user's autonomy with regard to the medical information they wish to learn and not learn about.

Artificial intelligence-based models enabling accurate diagnosis of ovarian cancer using laboratory tests in China: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological malignancy. Timely diagnosis of ovarian cancer is difficult due to the lack of effective biomarkers. Laboratory tests are widely applied in clinical practice, and some have shown diagnostic and prognostic relevance to ovarian cancer. We aimed to systematically evaluate the value of routine laboratory tests on the prediction of ovarian cancer, and develop a robust and generalisable ensemble artificial intelligence (AI) model to assist in identifying patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

In this multicentre, retrospective cohort study, we collected 98 laboratory tests and clinical features of women with or without ovarian cancer admitted to three hospitals in China during Jan 1, 2012 and April 4, 2021. A multi-criteria decision making-based classification fusion (MCF) risk prediction framework was used to make a model that combined estimations from 20 AI classification models to reach an integrated prediction tool developed for ovarian cancer diagnosis. It was evaluated on an internal validation set (3007 individuals) and two external validation sets (5641 and 2344 individuals). The primary outcome was the prediction accuracy of the model in identifying ovarian cancer.

FINDINGS

Based on 52 features (51 laboratory tests and age), the MCF achieved an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0·949 (95% CI 0·948-0·950) in the internal validation set, and AUCs of 0·882 (0·880-0·885) and 0·884 (0·882-0·887) in the two external validation sets. The model showed higher AUC and sensitivity compared with CA125 and HE4 in identifying ovarian cancer, especially in patients with early-stage ovarian cancer. The MCF also yielded acceptable prediction accuracy with the exclusion of highly ranked laboratory tests that indicate ovarian cancer, such as CA125 and other tumour markers, and outperformed state-of-the-art models in ovarian cancer prediction. The MCF was wrapped as an ovarian cancer prediction tool, and made publicly available to provide estimated probability of ovarian cancer with input laboratory test values.

INTERPRETATION

The MCF model consistently achieved satisfactory performance in ovarian cancer prediction when using laboratory tests from the three validation sets. This model offers a low-cost, easily accessible, and accurate diagnostic tool for ovarian cancer. The included laboratory tests, not only CA125 which was the highest ranked laboratory test in importance of diagnostic assistance, contributed to the characterisation of patients with ovarian cancer.

FUNDING

Ministry of Science and Technology of China; National Natural Science Foundation of China; Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China; and Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou, China.

TRANSLATION

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Performance of ChatGPT Compared to Clinical Practice Guidelines in Making Informed Decisions for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Cross-sectional Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence chatbot to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We extracted recommendations from recent CPGs for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Relative clinical questions were developed and queried to OpenAI's ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). We compared ChatGPT answers to CPGs recommendations by assessing the (1) internal consistency of ChatGPT answers by measuring the percentage of text wording similarity when a clinical question was posed 3 times, (2) reliability between 2 independent reviewers in grading ChatGPT answers, and (3) accuracy of ChatGPT answers compared to CPGs recommendations. Reliability was estimated using Fleiss' kappa (κ) coefficients, and accuracy by interobserver agreement as the frequency of the agreements among all judgments. RESULTS: We tested 9 clinical questions. The internal consistency of text ChatGPT answers was unacceptable across all 3 trials in all clinical questions (mean percentage of 49%, standard deviation of 15). Intrareliability (reviewer 1: κ = 0.90, standard error [SE] = 0.09; reviewer 2: κ = 0.90, SE = 0.10) and interreliability (κ = 0.85, SE = 0.15) between the 2 reviewers was "almost perfect." Accuracy between ChatGPT answers and CPGs recommendations was slight, demonstrating agreement in 33% of recommendations. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT performed poorly in internal consistency and accuracy of the indications generated compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations for lumbosacral radicular pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-7. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12151.

Speed, accuracy, and efficiency: The promises and practices of digitization in pathology

Digitization is often presented in policy discourse as a panacea to a multitude of contemporary problems, not least in healthcare. How can policy promises relating to digitization be assessed and potentially countered in particular local contexts? Based on a study in Denmark, we suggest scrutinizing the politics of digitization by comparing policy promises about the future with practitioners' experience in the present. While Denmark is one of the most digitalized countries in the world, digitization of pathology has only recently been given full policy attention. As pathology departments are faced with an increased demand for pathology analysis and a shortage of pathologists, Danish policymakers have put forward digitization as a way to address these challenges. Who is it that wants to digitize pathology, why, and how does digitization unfold in routine work practices? Using online search and document analysis, we identify actors and analyze the policy promises describing expectations associated with digitization. We then use interviews and observations to juxtapose these expectations with observations of everyday pathology practices as experienced by pathologists. We show that policymakers expect digitization to improve speed, patient safety, and diagnostic accuracy, as well as efficiency. In everyday practice, however, digitization does not deliver on these expectations. Fulfillment of policy expectations instead hinges on the types of artificial intelligence (AI) applications that are still to be developed and implemented. Some pathologists remark that AI might work in the easy cases, but this would leave them with only the difficult cases, which they consider too burdensome. Our particular mode of juxtaposing policy and practice throws new light on the political work done by policy promises and helps to explain why the discipline of pathology does not seem to easily lend itself to the digital embrace.

Applications of Machine Learning (ML) and Mathematical Modeling (MM) in Healthcare with Special Focus on Cancer Prognosis and Anticancer Therapy: Current Status and Challenges

The use of data-driven high-throughput analytical techniques, which has given rise to computational oncology, is undisputed. The widespread use of machine learning (ML) and mathematical modeling (MM)-based techniques is widely acknowledged. These two approaches have fueled the advancement in cancer research and eventually led to the uptake of telemedicine in cancer care. For diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment purposes concerning different types of cancer research, vast databases of varied information with manifold dimensions are required, and indeed, all this information can only be managed by an automated system developed utilizing ML and MM. In addition, MM is being used to probe the relationship between the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD interactions) of anti-cancer substances to improve cancer treatment, and also to refine the quality of existing treatment models by being incorporated at all steps of research and development related to cancer and in routine patient care. This review will serve as a consolidation of the advancement and benefits of ML and MM techniques with a special focus on the area of cancer prognosis and anticancer therapy, leading to the identification of challenges (data quantity, ethical consideration, and data privacy) which are yet to be fully addressed in current studies.

Ethics of artificial intelligence in prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine

This paper examines the ethics of introducing emerging forms of artificial intelligence (AI) into prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine. Application of genomic AI to these early life settings has not received much attention in the ethics literature. We focus on three contexts: (1) prenatal genomic sequencing for possible fetal abnormalities, (2) rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children, and (3) reanalysis of genomic data obtained from children for diagnostic purposes. The paper identifies and discusses various ethical issues in the possible application of genomic AI in these settings, especially as they relate to concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, justice, transparency, accountability, privacy, and trust. The examination will inform the ethically sound introduction of genomic AI in early human life.

AI maturity in health care: An overview of 10 OECD countries

BACKGROUND

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its applications in health care are on the agenda of policymakers around the world, but a major challenge remains, namely, to set policies that will ensure wide acceptance and capture the value of AI while mitigating associated risks.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide an overview of how OECD countries strategize about how to integrate AI into health care and to determine their actual level of AI maturity.

METHODS

A scan of government-based AI strategies and initiatives adopted in 10 proactive OECD countries was conducted. Available documentation was analyzed, using the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development's roadmap to AI maturity as a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

The findings reveal that most selected OECD countries are at the Emerging stage (Level 2) of AI in health maturity. Despite considerable funding and a variety of approaches to the development of an AI in health supporting ecosystem, only the United Kingdom and United States have reached the highest level of maturity, an integrated and collaborative AI in health ecosystem (Level 3).

CONCLUSION

Despite policymakers looking for opportunities to expedite efforts related to AI, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ensure the sustainable development and safe use of AI in health. The principles of equifinality and mindfulness must thus guide policymaking in the development of AI in health care.

Artificial intelligence in medicine and the negative outcome penalty paradox

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for transforming clinical diagnostics. While much has been written both about public attitudes toward the use of AI tools in medicine and about uncertainty regarding legal liability that may be delaying its adoption, the interface of these two issues has so far drawn less attention. However, understanding this interface is essential to determining how jury behaviour is likely to influence adoption of AI by physicians. One distinctive concern identified in this paper is a 'negative outcome penalty paradox' (NOPP) in which physicians risk being penalised by juries in cases with negative outcomes, whether they overrule AI determinations or accept them. The paper notes three reasons why AI in medicine is uniquely susceptible to the NOPP and urges serious further consideration of this complex dilemma.

Exploring the potential utility of AI large language models for medical ethics: an expert panel evaluation of GPT-4

Integrating large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 into medical ethics is a novel concept, and understanding the effectiveness of these models in aiding ethicists with decision-making can have significant implications for the healthcare sector. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of GPT-4 in responding to complex medical ethical vignettes and to gauge its utility and limitations for aiding medical ethicists. Using a mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey approach, a panel of six ethicists assessed LLM-generated responses to eight ethical vignettes.The main outcomes measured were relevance, reasoning, depth, technical and non-technical clarity, as well as acceptability of GPT-4's responses. The readability of the responses was also assessed. Of the six metrics evaluating the effectiveness of GPT-4's responses, the overall mean score was 4.1/5. GPT-4 was rated highest in providing technical (4.7/5) and non-technical clarity (4.4/5), whereas the lowest rated metrics were depth (3.8/5) and acceptability (3.8/5). There was poor-to-moderate inter-rater reliability characterised by an intraclass coefficient of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.71). Based on panellist feedback, GPT-4 was able to identify and articulate key ethical issues but struggled to appreciate the nuanced aspects of ethical dilemmas and misapplied certain moral principles.This study reveals limitations in the ability of GPT-4 to appreciate the depth and nuanced acceptability of real-world ethical dilemmas, particularly those that require a thorough understanding of relational complexities and context-specific values. Ongoing evaluation of LLM capabilities within medical ethics remains paramount, and further refinement is needed before it can be used effectively in clinical settings.

AI and professional liability assessment in healthcare. A revolution in legal medicine?

The adoption of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems in healthcare is transforming the healthcare-delivery landscape. Artificial intelligence may enhance patient safety and improve healthcare outcomes, but it presents notable ethical and legal dilemmas. Moreover, as AI streamlines the analysis of the multitude of factors relevant to malpractice claims, including informed consent, adherence to standards of care, and causation, the evaluation of professional liability might also benefit from its use. Beginning with an analysis of the basic steps in assessing professional liability, this article examines the potential new medical-legal issues that an expert witness may encounter when analyzing malpractice cases and the potential integration of AI in this context. These changes related to the use of integrated AI, will necessitate efforts on the part of judges, experts, and clinicians, and may require new legislative regulations. A new expert witness will be likely necessary in the evaluation of professional liability cases. On the one hand, artificial intelligence will support the expert witness; however, on the other hand, it will introduce specific elements into the activities of healthcare workers. These elements will necessitate an expert witness with a specialized cultural background. Examining the steps of professional liability assessment indicates that the likely path for AI in legal medicine involves its role as a collaborative and integrated tool. The combination of AI with human judgment in these assessments can enhance comprehensiveness and fairness. However, it is imperative to adopt a cautious and balanced approach to prevent complete automation in this field.

Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: A web-based experiment

Objective

Despite the increasing use of AI applications as a clinical decision support tool in healthcare, patients are often unaware of their use in the physician's decision-making process. This study aims to determine whether doctors should disclose the use of AI tools in diagnosis and what kind of information should be provided.

Methods

A survey experiment with 1000 respondents in South Korea was conducted to estimate the patients' perceived importance of information regarding the use of an AI tool in diagnosis in deciding whether to receive the treatment.

Results

The study found that the use of an AI tool increases the perceived importance of information related to its use, compared with when a physician consults with a human radiologist. Information regarding the AI tool when AI is used was perceived by participants either as more important than or similar to the regularly disclosed information regarding short-term effects when AI is not used. Further analysis revealed that gender, age, and income have a statistically significant effect on the perceived importance of every piece of AI information.

Conclusions

This study supports the disclosure of AI use in diagnosis during the informed consent process. However, the disclosure should be tailored to the individual patient's needs, as patient preferences for information regarding AI use vary across gender, age and income levels. It is recommended that ethical guidelines be developed for informed consent when using AI in diagnoses that go beyond mere legal requirements.

Revolutionising healthcare with artificial intelligence: A bibliometric analysis of 40 years of progress in health systems

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised the medical system, empowering healthcare professionals to analyse complex nonlinear big data and identify hidden patterns, facilitating well-informed decisions. Over the last decade, there has been a notable trend of research in AI, machine learning (ML), and their associated algorithms in health and medical systems. These approaches have transformed the healthcare system, enhancing efficiency, accuracy, personalised treatment, and decision-making. Recognising the importance and growing trend of research in the topic area, this paper presents a bibliometric analysis of AI in health and medical systems. The paper utilises the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database, considering documents published in the topic area for the last four decades. A total of 64,063 papers were identified from 1983 to 2022. The paper evaluates the bibliometric data from various perspectives, such as annual papers published, annual citations, highly cited papers, and most productive institutions, and countries. The paper visualises the relationship among various scientific actors by presenting bibliographic coupling and co-occurrences of the author's keywords. The analysis indicates that the field began its significant growth in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with significant growth since 2019. The most influential institutions are in the USA and China. The study also reveals that the scientific community's top keywords include 'ML', 'Deep Learning', and 'Artificial Intelligence'.

Fairness of artificial intelligence in healthcare: review and recommendations

In this review, we address the issue of fairness in the clinical integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field. As the clinical adoption of deep learning algorithms, a subfield of AI, progresses, concerns have arisen regarding the impact of AI biases and discrimination on patient health. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of concerns associated with AI fairness; discuss strategies to mitigate AI biases; and emphasize the need for cooperation among physicians, AI researchers, AI developers, policymakers, and patients to ensure equitable AI integration. First, we define and introduce the concept of fairness in AI applications in healthcare and radiology, emphasizing the benefits and challenges of incorporating AI into clinical practice. Next, we delve into concerns regarding fairness in healthcare, addressing the various causes of biases in AI and potential concerns such as misdiagnosis, unequal access to treatment, and ethical considerations. We then outline strategies for addressing fairness, such as the importance of diverse and representative data and algorithm audits. Additionally, we discuss ethical and legal considerations such as data privacy, responsibility, accountability, transparency, and explainability in AI. Finally, we present the Fairness of Artificial Intelligence Recommendations in healthcare (FAIR) statement to offer best practices. Through these efforts, we aim to provide a foundation for discussing the responsible and equitable implementation and deployment of AI in healthcare.

Responsibility and decision-making authority in using clinical decision support systems: an empirical-ethical exploration of German prospective professionals' preferences and concerns

Machine learning-driven clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSSs) seem impressively promising for future routine and emergency care. However, reflection on their clinical implementation reveals a wide array of ethical challenges. The preferences, concerns and expectations of professional stakeholders remain largely unexplored. Empirical research, however, may help to clarify the conceptual debate and its aspects in terms of their relevance for clinical practice. This study explores, from an ethical point of view, future healthcare professionals' attitudes to potential changes of responsibility and decision-making authority when using ML-CDSS. Twenty-seven semistructured interviews were conducted with German medical students and nursing trainees. The data were analysed based on qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. Interviewees' reflections are presented under three themes the interviewees describe as closely related: (self-)attribution of responsibility, decision-making authority and need of (professional) experience. The results illustrate the conceptual interconnectedness of professional responsibility and its structural and epistemic preconditions to be able to fulfil clinicians' responsibility in a meaningful manner. The study also sheds light on the four relata of responsibility understood as a relational concept. The article closes with concrete suggestions for the ethically sound clinical implementation of ML-CDSS.

The underuse of AI in the health sector: Opportunity costs, success stories, risks and recommendations

Purpose

This contribution explores the underuse of artificial intelligence (AI) in the health sector, what this means for practice, and how much the underuse can cost. Attention is drawn to the relevance of an issue that the European Parliament has outlined as a "major threat" in 2020. At its heart is the risk that research and development on trusted AI systems for medicine and digital health will pile up in lab centers without generating further practical relevance. Our analysis highlights why researchers, practitioners and especially policymakers, should pay attention to this phenomenon.

Methods

The paper examines the ways in which governments and public agencies are addressing the underuse of AI. As governments and international organizations often acknowledge the limitations of their own initiatives, the contribution explores the causes of the current issues and suggests ways to improve initiatives for digital health.

Results

Recommendations address the development of standards, models of regulatory governance, assessment of the opportunity costs of underuse of technology, and the urgency of the problem.

Conclusions

The exponential pace of AI advances and innovations makes the risks of underuse of AI increasingly threatening.

Graphical Abstract

Influence on the accuracy in ChatGPT: Differences in the amount of information per medical field

OBJECTIVES

Although ChatGPT was not developed for medical use, there is growing interest in its use in medical fields. Understanding its capabilities and precautions for its use in the medical field is an urgent matter. We hypothesized that differences in the amounts of information published in different medical fields would be proportionate to the amounts of training ChatGPT receives in those fields, and hence its accuracy in providing answers.

STUDY DESIGN

A non-clinical experimental study.

METHODS

We administered the Japanese National Medical Examination to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to examine the rates of accuracy and consistency in their responses. We counted the total number of documents in the Web of Science Core Collection per medical field and assessed the relationship with ChatGPT's accuracy. We also performed multivariate-adjusted models to investigate the risk factors for incorrect answers.

RESULTS

For GPT-4, we confirmed an accuracy rate of 81.0 % and a consistency rate of 88.8 % on the exam; both showed improvement compared to those for GPT-3.5. A positive correlation was observed between the accuracy rate and consistency rate (R = 0.51, P < 0.001). The number of documents per medical field was significantly correlated with the accuracy rate in that medical field (R = 0.44, P < 0.05), with relatively few publications being an independent risk factor for incorrect answers.

CONCLUSIONS

Checking consistency may help identify incorrect answers when using ChatGPT. Users should be aware that the accuracy of the answers by ChatGPT may decrease when it is asked about topics with limited published information, such as new drugs and diseases.

Developer Perspectives on Potential Harms of Machine Learning Predictive Analytics in Health Care: Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Machine learning predictive analytics (MLPA) is increasingly used in health care to reduce costs and improve efficacy; it also has the potential to harm patients and trust in health care. Academic and regulatory leaders have proposed a variety of principles and guidelines to address the challenges of evaluating the safety of machine learning-based software in the health care context, but accepted practices do not yet exist. However, there appears to be a shift toward process-based regulatory paradigms that rely heavily on self-regulation. At the same time, little research has examined the perspectives about the harms of MLPA developers themselves, whose role will be essential in overcoming the "principles-to-practice" gap.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to understand how MLPA developers of health care products perceived the potential harms of those products and their responses to recognized harms.

METHODS

We interviewed 40 individuals who were developing MLPA tools for health care at 15 US-based organizations, including data scientists, software engineers, and those with mid- and high-level management roles. These 15 organizations were selected to represent a range of organizational types and sizes from the 106 that we previously identified. We asked developers about their perspectives on the potential harms of their work, factors that influence these harms, and their role in mitigation. We used standard qualitative analysis of transcribed interviews to identify themes in the data.

RESULTS

We found that MLPA developers recognized a range of potential harms of MLPA to individuals, social groups, and the health care system, such as issues of privacy, bias, and system disruption. They also identified drivers of these harms related to the characteristics of machine learning and specific to the health care and commercial contexts in which the products are developed. MLPA developers also described strategies to respond to these drivers and potentially mitigate the harms. Opportunities included balancing algorithm performance goals with potential harms, emphasizing iterative integration of health care expertise, and fostering shared company values. However, their recognition of their own responsibility to address potential harms varied widely.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though MLPA developers recognized that their products can harm patients, public, and even health systems, robust procedures to assess the potential for harms and the need for mitigation do not exist. Our findings suggest that, to the extent that new oversight paradigms rely on self-regulation, they will face serious challenges if harms are driven by features that developers consider inescapable in health care and business environments. Furthermore, effective self-regulation will require MLPA developers to accept responsibility for safety and efficacy and know how to act accordingly. Our results suggest that, at the very least, substantial education will be necessary to fill the "principles-to-practice" gap.

Artificial Intelligence and Patient Autonomy in Obesity Treatment Decisions: An Empirical Study of the Challenges

Background This study aims to explore the factors associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and patient autonomy in obesity treatment decision-making. Methodology A cross-sectional, online, descriptive survey design was adopted in this study. The survey instrument incorporated the Ideal Patient Autonomy Scale (IPAS) and other factors affecting patient autonomy in the AI-patient relationship. The study participants included 74 physicians, 55 dieticians, and 273 obese patients. Results Different views were expressed in the scales AI knows the best (μ = 2.95-3.15) and the patient should decide (μ = 2.95-3.16). Ethical concerns (μ = 3.24) and perceived privacy risks (μ = 3.58) were identified as having a more negative influence on patient autonomy compared to personal innovativeness (μ = 2.41) and trust (μ = 2.85). Physicians and dieticians expressed significantly higher trust in AI compared to patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions Patient autonomy in the AI-patient relationship is significantly affected by privacy, trust, and ethical issues. As trust is a multifaceted factor and AI is a novel technology in healthcare, it is essential to fully explore the various factors influencing trust and patient autonomy.

Using artificial intelligence to improve public health: a narrative review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving tool revolutionizing many aspects of healthcare. AI has been predominantly employed in medicine and healthcare administration. However, in public health, the widespread employment of AI only began recently, with the advent of COVID-19. This review examines the advances of AI in public health and the potential challenges that lie ahead. Some of the ways AI has aided public health delivery are via spatial modeling, risk prediction, misinformation control, public health surveillance, disease forecasting, pandemic/epidemic modeling, and health diagnosis. However, the implementation of AI in public health is not universal due to factors including limited infrastructure, lack of technical understanding, data paucity, and ethical/privacy issues.

Perceptions and concerns of emergency medicine practitioners about artificial intelligence in emergency triage management during the pandemic: a national survey-based study

Objective

There have been continuous discussions over the ethics of using AI in healthcare. We sought to identify the ethical issues and viewpoints of Turkish emergency care doctors about the use of AI during epidemic triage.

Materials and methods

Ten emergency specialists were initially enlisted for this project, and their responses to open-ended questions about the ethical issues surrounding AI in the emergency room provided valuable information. A 15-question survey was created based on their input and was refined through a pilot test with 15 emergency specialty doctors. Following that, the updated survey was sent to emergency specialists via email, social media, and private email distribution.

Results

167 emergency medicine specialists participated in the study, with an average age of 38.22 years and 6.79 years of professional experience. The majority agreed that AI could benefit patients (54.50%) and healthcare professionals (70.06%) in emergency department triage during pandemics. Regarding responsibility, 63.47% believed in shared responsibility between emergency medicine specialists and AI manufacturers/programmers for complications. Additionally, 79.04% of participants agreed that the responsibility for complications in AI applications varies depending on the nature of the complication. Concerns about privacy were expressed by 20.36% regarding deep learning-based applications, while 61.68% believed that anonymity protected privacy. Additionally, 70.66% of participants believed that AI systems would be as sensitive as humans in terms of non-discrimination.

Conclusion

The potential advantages of deploying AI programs in emergency department triage during pandemics for patients and healthcare providers were acknowledged by emergency medicine doctors in Turkey. Nevertheless, they expressed notable ethical concerns related to the responsibility and accountability aspects of utilizing AI systems in this context.

Fair and equitable AI in biomedical research and healthcare: Social science perspectives

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers opportunities but also challenges for biomedical research and healthcare. This position paper shares the results of the international conference "Fair medicine and AI" (online 3-5 March 2021). Scholars from science and technology studies (STS), gender studies, and ethics of science and technology formulated opportunities, challenges, and research and development desiderata for AI in healthcare. AI systems and solutions, which are being rapidly developed and applied, may have undesirable and unintended consequences including the risk of perpetuating health inequalities for marginalized groups. Socially robust development and implications of AI in healthcare require urgent investigation. There is a particular dearth of studies in human-AI interaction and how this may best be configured to dependably deliver safe, effective and equitable healthcare. To address these challenges, we need to establish diverse and interdisciplinary teams equipped to develop and apply medical AI in a fair, accountable and transparent manner. We formulate the importance of including social science perspectives in the development of intersectionally beneficent and equitable AI for biomedical research and healthcare, in part by strengthening AI health evaluation.

Multidisciplinary considerations of fairness in medical AI: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has been developed significantly in recent years. The fairness of medical AI is of great concern due to its direct relation to human life and health. This review aims to analyze the existing research literature on fairness in medical AI from the perspectives of computer science, medical science, and social science (including law and ethics). The objective of the review is to examine the similarities and differences in the understanding of fairness, explore influencing factors, and investigate potential measures to implement fairness in medical AI across English and Chinese literature.

METHODS

This study employed a scoping review methodology and selected the following databases: Web of Science, MEDLINE, Pubmed, OVID, CNKI, WANFANG Data, etc., for the fairness issues in medical AI through February 2023. The search was conducted using various keywords such as "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "medical," "algorithm," "fairness," "decision-making," and "bias." The collected data were charted, synthesized, and subjected to descriptive and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

After reviewing 468 English papers and 356 Chinese papers, 53 and 42 were included in the final analysis. Our results show the three different disciplines all show significant differences in the research on the core issues. Data is the foundation that affects medical AI fairness in addition to algorithmic bias and human bias. Legal, ethical, and technological measures all promote the implementation of medical AI fairness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates a consensus regarding the importance of data fairness as the foundation for achieving fairness in medical AI across multidisciplinary perspectives. However, there are substantial discrepancies in core aspects such as the concept, influencing factors, and implementation measures of fairness in medical AI. Consequently, future research should facilitate interdisciplinary discussions to bridge the cognitive gaps between different fields and enhance the practical implementation of fairness in medical AI.

The promise of data science for health research in Africa

Data science health research promises tremendous benefits for African populations, but its implementation is fraught with substantial ethical governance risks that could thwart the delivery of these anticipated benefits. We discuss emerging efforts to build ethical governance frameworks for data science health research in Africa and the opportunities to advance these through investments by African governments and institutions, international funding organizations and collaborations for research and capacity development.

Navigating the AI Revolution: The Case for Precise Regulation in Health Care

Health care is undergoing a profound transformation through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI). However, the rapid integration and expansive growth of AI within health care systems present ethical and legal challenges that warrant careful consideration. In this viewpoint, the author argues that the health care domain, due to its complexity, requires specialized approaches to regulating AI. Precise regulation can provide clear guidelines for addressing these challenges, thereby ensuring ethical and legal AI implementations.

Artificial Intelligence Chatbots and Emergency Medical Services: Perspectives on the Implications of Generative AI in Prehospital Care

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is likely to experience transformative changes due to the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT. In this short commentary, we aim to preliminarily explore some profound implications of AI advancements on EMS systems and practice.

Reimagining Healthcare: Unleashing the Power of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Artificial intelligence (AI) has opened new medical avenues and revolutionized diagnostic and therapeutic practices, allowing healthcare providers to overcome significant challenges associated with cost, disease management, accessibility, and treatment optimization. Prominent AI technologies such as machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have immensely influenced diagnostics, patient monitoring, novel pharmaceutical discoveries, drug development, and telemedicine. Significant innovations and improvements in disease identification and early intervention have been made using AI-generated algorithms for clinical decision support systems and disease prediction models. AI has remarkably impacted clinical drug trials by amplifying research into drug efficacy, adverse events, and candidate molecular design. AI's precision and analysis regarding patients' genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors have led to individualized treatment strategies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, AI-assisted telemedicine set a precedent for remote healthcare delivery and patient follow-up. Moreover, AI-generated applications and wearable devices have allowed ambulatory monitoring of vital signs. However, apart from being immensely transformative, AI's contribution to healthcare is subject to ethical and regulatory concerns. AI-backed data protection and algorithm transparency should be strictly adherent to ethical principles. Vigorous governance frameworks should be in place before incorporating AI in mental health interventions through AI-operated chatbots, medical education enhancements, and virtual reality-based training. The role of AI in medical decision-making has certain limitations, necessitating the importance of hands-on experience. Therefore, reaching an optimal balance between AI's capabilities and ethical considerations to ensure impartial and neutral performance in healthcare applications is crucial. This narrative review focuses on AI's impact on healthcare and the importance of ethical and balanced incorporation to make use of its full potential.

Epistemic Rights and Responsibilities of Digital Simulacra for Biomedicine

Big data and AI have enabled digital simulation for prediction of future health states or behaviors of specific individuals, populations or humans in general. "Digital simulacra" use multimodal datasets to develop computational models that are virtual representations of people or groups, generating predictions of how systems evolve and react to interventions over time. These include digital twins and virtual patients for in silico clinical trials, both of which seek to transform research and health care by speeding innovation and bridging the epistemic gap between population-based research findings and their application to the individual. Nevertheless, digital simulacra mark a major milestone on a trajectory to embrace the epistemic culture of data science and a potential abandonment of medical epistemological concepts of causality and representation. In doing so, "data first" approaches potentially shift moral attention from actual patients and principles, such as equity, to simulated patients and patient data.

Multiomic Investigations into Lung Health and Disease

Diseases of the lung account for more than 5 million deaths worldwide and are a healthcare burden. Improving clinical outcomes, including mortality and quality of life, involves a holistic understanding of the disease, which can be provided by the integration of lung multi-omics data. An enhanced understanding of comprehensive multiomic datasets provides opportunities to leverage those datasets to inform the treatment and prevention of lung diseases by classifying severity, prognostication, and discovery of biomarkers. The main objective of this review is to summarize the use of multiomics investigations in lung disease, including multiomics integration and the use of machine learning computational methods. This review also discusses lung disease models, including animal models, organoids, and single-cell lines, to study multiomics in lung health and disease. We provide examples of lung diseases where multi-omics investigations have provided deeper insight into etiopathogenesis and have resulted in improved preventative and therapeutic interventions.

Testimonial injustice in medical machine learning

Machine learning (ML) systems play an increasingly relevant role in medicine and healthcare. As their applications move ever closer to patient care and cure in clinical settings, ethical concerns about the responsibility of their use come to the fore. I analyse an aspect of responsible ML use that bears not only an ethical but also a significant epistemic dimension. I focus on ML systems' role in mediating patient-physician relations. I thereby consider how ML systems may silence patients' voices and relativise the credibility of their opinions, which undermines their overall credibility status without valid moral and epistemic justification. More specifically, I argue that withholding credibility due to how ML systems operate can be particularly harmful to patients and, apart from adverse outcomes, qualifies as a form of testimonial injustice. I make my case for testimonial injustice in medical ML by considering ML systems currently used in the USA to predict patients' risk of misusing opioids (automated Prediction Drug Monitoring Programmes, PDMPs for short). I argue that the locus of testimonial injustice in ML-mediated medical encounters is found in the fact that these systems are treated as markers of trustworthiness on which patients' credibility is assessed. I further show how ML-based PDMPs exacerbate and further propagate social inequalities at the expense of vulnerable social groups.

The need for digital health education among next-generation health workers in China: a cross-sectional survey on digital health education

BACKGROUND

Digital health is important for sustainable health systems and universal health coverage. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many countries, including China, have promoted the introduction of digital health in their medical services. Developing the next generation of physicians with digital health knowledge and skills is a prerequisite for maximizing the potential of digital health.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand the perception of digital health among Chinese medical students, the current implementation of digital health education in China, and the urgent need of medical students.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional survey was conducted online and anonymously among current medical students in China. We used descriptive statistical analysis to examine participant demographic characteristics and the demand for digital health education. Additional analysis was conducted by grouping responses by current participation in a digital health course.

RESULTS

A total of 2122 valid responses were received from 467 medical schools. Most medical students had positive expectations that digital health will change the future of medicine. Compared with wearable devices (85.53%), telemedicine (84.16%), and medical big data (86.38%), fewer respondents believed in the benefits of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) (63.81%). Most respondents said they urgently needed digital health knowledge and skills, and the teaching method of practical training and internship (78.02%) was more popular than the traditional lecture (10.54%). However, only 41.45% wanted to learn about the ethical and legal issues surrounding digital health.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the current needs of Chinese medical students for digital health education remain unmet. A national initiative on digital health education, is necessary and attention should be paid to digital health equity and education globally, focusing on CDSS and artificial intelligence. Ethics knowledge must also be included in medical curriculum. Students as Partners (SAP) is a promising approach for designing digital health courses.

Development and validation of the AI attitude scale (AIAS-4): a brief measure of general attitude toward artificial intelligence

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has generated an increasing demand for tools that can assess public attitudes toward AI. This study proposes the development and the validation of the AI Attitude Scale (AIAS), a concise self-report instrument designed to evaluate public perceptions of AI technology. The first version of the AIAS that the present manuscript proposes comprises five items, including one reverse-scored item, which aims to gauge individuals' beliefs about AI's influence on their lives, careers, and humanity overall. The scale is designed to capture attitudes toward AI, focusing on the perceived utility and potential impact of technology on society and humanity. The psychometric properties of the scale were investigated using diverse samples in two separate studies. An exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted on a preliminary 5-item version of the scale. Such exploratory validation study revealed the need to divide the scale into two factors. While the results demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency for the overall scale and its correlation with related psychometric measures, separate analyses for each factor showed robust internal consistency for Factor 1 but insufficient internal consistency for Factor 2. As a result, a second version of the scale is developed and validated, omitting the item that displayed weak correlation with the remaining items in the questionnaire. The refined final 1-factor, 4-item AIAS demonstrated superior overall internal consistency compared to the initial 5-item scale and the proposed factors. Further confirmatory factor analyses, performed on a different sample of participants, confirmed that the 1-factor model (4-items) of the AIAS exhibited an adequate fit to the data, providing additional evidence for the scale's structural validity and generalizability across diverse populations. In conclusion, the analyses reported in this article suggest that the developed and validated 4-items AIAS can be a valuable instrument for researchers and professionals working on AI development who seek to understand and study users' general attitudes toward AI.

Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees

BACKGROUND

It has been argued that ethics review committees-e.g., Research Ethics Committees, Institutional Review Boards, etc.- have weaknesses in reviewing big data and artificial intelligence research. For instance, they may, due to the novelty of the area, lack the relevant expertise for judging collective risks and benefits of such research, or they may exempt it from review in instances involving de-identified data.

MAIN BODY

Focusing on the example of medical research databases we highlight here ethical issues around de-identified data sharing which motivate the need for review where oversight by ethics committees is weak. Though some argue for ethics committee reform to overcome these weaknesses, it is unclear whether or when that will happen. Hence, we argue that ethical review can be done by data access committees, since they have de facto purview of big data and artificial intelligence projects, relevant technical expertise and governance knowledge, and already take on some functions of ethical review. That said, like ethics committees, they may have functional weaknesses in their review capabilities. To strengthen that function, data access committees must think clearly about the kinds of ethical expertise, both professional and lay, that they draw upon to support their work.

CONCLUSION

Data access committees can undertake ethical review of medical research databases provided they enhance that review function through professional and lay ethical expertise.

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Diagnostic Cytology and Genomic Testing for Hematologic Disorders

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving field of computer science that involves the development of computational programs that can mimic human intelligence. In particular, machine learning and deep learning models have enabled the identification and grouping of patterns within data, leading to the development of AI systems that have been applied in various areas of hematology, including digital pathology, alpha thalassemia patient screening, cytogenetics, immunophenotyping, and sequencing. These AI-assisted methods have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, identifying novel biomarkers, and predicting treatment outcomes. However, limitations such as limited databases, lack of validation and standardization, systematic errors, and bias prevent AI from completely replacing manual diagnosis in hematology. In addition, the processing of large amounts of patient data and personal information by AI poses potential data privacy issues, necessitating the development of regulations to evaluate AI systems and address ethical concerns in clinical AI systems. Nonetheless, with continued research and development, AI has the potential to revolutionize the field of hematology and improve patient outcomes. To fully realize this potential, however, the challenges facing AI in hematology must be addressed and overcome.

Responsible AI practice and AI education are central to AI implementation: a rapid review for all medical imaging professionals in Europe

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transitioned from the lab to the bedside, and it is increasingly being used in healthcare. Radiology and Radiography are on the frontline of AI implementation, because of the use of big data for medical imaging and diagnosis for different patient groups. Safe and effective AI implementation requires that responsible and ethical practices are upheld by all key stakeholders, that there is harmonious collaboration between different professional groups, and customised educational provisions for all involved. This paper outlines key principles of ethical and responsible AI, highlights recent educational initiatives for clinical practitioners and discusses the synergies between all medical imaging professionals as they prepare for the digital future in Europe. Responsible and ethical AI is vital to enhance a culture of safety and trust for healthcare professionals and patients alike. Educational and training provisions for medical imaging professionals on AI is central to the understanding of basic AI principles and applications and there are many offerings currently in Europe. Education can facilitate the transparency of AI tools, but more formalised, university-led training is needed to ensure the academic scrutiny, appropriate pedagogy, multidisciplinarity and customisation to the learners' unique needs are being adhered to. As radiographers and radiologists work together and with other professionals to understand and harness the benefits of AI in medical imaging, it becomes clear that they are faced with the same challenges and that they have the same needs. The digital future belongs to multidisciplinary teams that work seamlessly together, learn together, manage risk collectively and collaborate for the benefit of the patients they serve.

Towards artificial intelligence-enabled extracellular vesicle precision drug delivery

Extracellular Vesicles (EVs), particularly exosomes, recently exploded into nanomedicine as an emerging drug delivery approach due to their superior biocompatibility, circulating stability, and bioavailability in vivo. However, EV heterogeneity makes molecular targeting precision a critical challenge. Deciphering key molecular drivers for controlling EV tissue targeting specificity is in great need. Artificial intelligence (AI) brings powerful prediction ability for guiding the rational design of engineered EVs in precision control for drug delivery. This review focuses on cutting-edge nano-delivery via integrating large-scale EV data with AI to develop AI-directed EV therapies and illuminate the clinical translation potential. We briefly review the current status of EVs in drug delivery, including the current frontier, limitations, and considerations to advance the field. Subsequently, we detail the future of AI in drug delivery and its impact on precision EV delivery. Our review discusses the current universal challenge of standardization and critical considerations when using AI combined with EVs for precision drug delivery. Finally, we will conclude this review with a perspective on future clinical translation led by a combined effort of AI and EV research.

Democratising or disrupting diagnosis? Ethical issues raised by the use of AI tools for rare disease diagnosis

Computational phenotyping (CP) technology uses facial recognition algorithms to classify and potentially diagnose rare genetic disorders on the basis of digitised facial images. This AI technology has a number of research as well as clinical applications, such as supporting diagnostic decision-making. Using the example of CP, we examine stakeholders' views of the benefits and costs of using AI as a diagnostic tool within the clinic. Through a series of in-depth interviews (n ​= ​20) with: clinicians, clinical researchers, data scientists, industry and support group representatives, we report stakeholder views regarding the adoption of this technology in a clinical setting. While most interviewees were supportive of employing CP as a diagnostic tool in some capacity we observed ambivalence around the potential for artificial intelligence to overcome diagnostic uncertainty in a clinical context. Thus, while there was widespread agreement amongst interviewees concerning the public benefits of AI assisted diagnosis, namely, its potential to increase diagnostic yield and enable faster more objective and accurate diagnoses by up skilling non specialists and thereby enabling access to diagnosis that is potentially lacking, interviewees also raised concerns about ensuring algorithmic reliability, expunging algorithmic bias and that the use of AI could result in deskilling the specialist clinical workforce. We conclude that, prior to widespread clinical implementation, on-going reflection is needed regarding the trade-offs required to determine acceptable levels of bias and conclude that diagnostic AI tools should only be employed as an assistive technology within the dysmorphology clinic.