Governing AI-Driven Health Research: Are IRBs Up to the Task?

Multimodal Large Language Models in Health Care: Applications, Challenges, and Future Outlook

In the complex and multidimensional field of medicine, multimodal data are prevalent and crucial for informed clinical decisions. Multimodal data span a broad spectrum of data types, including medical images (eg, MRI and CT scans), time-series data (eg, sensor data from wearable devices and electronic health records), audio recordings (eg, heart and respiratory sounds and patient interviews), text (eg, clinical notes and research articles), videos (eg, surgical procedures), and omics data (eg, genomics and proteomics). While advancements in large language models (LLMs) have enabled new applications for knowledge retrieval and processing in the medical field, most LLMs remain limited to processing unimodal data, typically text-based content, and often overlook the importance of integrating the diverse data modalities encountered in clinical practice. This paper aims to present a detailed, practical, and solution-oriented perspective on the use of multimodal LLMs (M-LLMs) in the medical field. Our investigation spanned M-LLM foundational principles, current and potential applications, technical and ethical challenges, and future research directions. By connecting these elements, we aimed to provide a comprehensive framework that links diverse aspects of M-LLMs, offering a unified vision for their future in health care. This approach aims to guide both future research and practical implementations of M-LLMs in health care, positioning them as a paradigm shift toward integrated, multimodal data-driven medical practice. We anticipate that this work will spark further discussion and inspire the development of innovative approaches in the next generation of medical M-LLM systems.

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.

Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Several factors thwart successful data sharing-ambiguous or fragmented regulatory landscapes, conflicting institutional/researcher interests and varying levels of data science-related expertise are among these. Traditional ethics oversight mechanisms and practices may not be well placed to guarantee adequate research oversight given the unique challenges presented by digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Data-intensive research has raised new, contextual ethics and legal challenges that are particularly relevant in an African research setting. Yet, no empirical research has been conducted to explore these challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We explored REC members' views and experiences on data sharing by conducting 20 semi-structured interviews online between June 2022 and February 2023. Using purposive sampling and snowballing, we recruited representatives across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed the data with Atlas.ti V22.

RESULTS

Three dominant themes were identified: (i) experiences in reviewing data sharing protocols, (ii) perceptions of data transfer tools and (iii) ethical, legal and social challenges of data sharing. Several sub-themes emerged as: (i.a) frequency of and approaches used in reviewing data sharing protocols, (i.b) practical/technical challenges, (i.c) training, (ii.a) ideal structure of data transfer tools, (ii.b) key elements of data transfer tools, (ii.c) implementation level, (ii.d) key stakeholders in developing and reviewing a data transfer agreement (DTA), (iii.a) confidentiality and anonymity, (iii.b) consent, (iii.c) regulatory frameworks, and (iii.d) stigmatisation and discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated variability in REC members' perceptions, suboptimal awareness of the existence of data protection laws and a unanimously expressed need for REC member training. To promote efficient data sharing within and across SSA, guidelines that incorporate ethical, legal and social elements need to be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and field experts, along with the training accreditation of REC members in the review of data-intensive protocols.

Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

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.

Specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence in research ethics

Background

The twenty first century is often defined as the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which raises many questions regarding its impact on society. It is already significantly changing many practices in different fields. Research ethics (RE) is no exception. Many challenges, including responsibility, privacy, and transparency, are encountered. Research ethics boards (REB) have been established to ensure that ethical practices are adequately followed during research projects. This scoping review aims to bring out the challenges of AI in research ethics and to investigate if REBs are equipped to evaluate them.

Methods

Three electronic databases were selected to collect peer-reviewed articles that fit the inclusion criteria (English or French, published between 2016 and 2021, containing AI, RE, and REB). Two instigators independently reviewed each piece by screening with Covidence and then coding with NVivo.

Results

From having a total of 657 articles to review, we were left with a final sample of 28 relevant papers for our scoping review. The selected literature described AI in research ethics (i.e., views on current guidelines, key ethical concept and approaches, key issues of the current state of AI-specific RE guidelines) and REBs regarding AI (i.e., their roles, scope and approaches, key practices and processes, limitations and challenges, stakeholder perceptions). However, the literature often described REBs ethical assessment practices of projects in AI research as lacking knowledge and tools.

Conclusion

Ethical reflections are taking a step forward while normative guidelines adaptation to AI's reality is still dawdling. This impacts REBs and most stakeholders involved with AI. Indeed, REBs are not equipped enough to adequately evaluate AI research ethics and require standard guidelines to help them do so.

Public governance of medical artificial intelligence research in the UK: an integrated multi-scale model

There is a growing consensus among scholars, national governments, and intergovernmental organisations of the need to involve the public in decision-making around the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. Focusing on the UK, this paper asks how that can be achieved for medical AI research, that is, for research involving the training of AI on data from medical research databases. Public governance of medical AI research in the UK is generally achieved in three ways, namely, via lay representation on data access committees, through patient and public involvement groups, and by means of various deliberative democratic projects such as citizens' juries, citizen panels, citizen assemblies, etc.-what we collectively call "citizen forums". As we will show, each of these public involvement initiatives have complementary strengths and weaknesses for providing oversight of medical AI research. As they are currently utilized, however, they are unable to realize the full potential of their complementarity due to insufficient information transfer across them. In order to synergistically build on their contributions, we offer here a multi-scale model integrating all three. In doing so we provide a unified public governance model for medical AI research, one that, we argue, could improve the trustworthiness of big data and AI related medical research in the future.

The Challenges of Big Data for Research Ethics Committees: A Qualitative Swiss Study

Big data trends in health research challenge the oversight mechanism of the Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The traditional standards of research quality and the mandate of RECs illuminate deficits in facing the computational complexity, methodological novelty, and limited auditability of these approaches. To better understand the challenges facing RECs, we explored the perspectives and attitudes of the members of the seven Swiss Cantonal RECs via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Our interviews reveal limited experience among REC members with the review of big data research, insufficient expertise in data science, and uncertainty about how to mitigate big data research risks. Nonetheless, RECs could strengthen their oversight by training in data science and big data ethics, complementing their role with external experts and ad hoc boards, and introducing precise shared practices.

Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?

BACKGROUND

Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts.

MAIN TEXT

In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.