"Just" accuracy? Procedural fairness demands explainability in AI-based medical resource allocations

Digital Transformation of Public Health for Noncommunicable Diseases: Narrative Viewpoint of Challenges and Opportunities

The recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the effectiveness and rapid deployment of digital public health interventions, notably the digital proximity tracing apps, leveraging Bluetooth capabilities to trace and notify users about potential infection exposures. Backed by renowned organizations such as the World Health Organization and the European Union, digital proximity tracings showcased the promise of digital public health. As the world pivots from pandemic responses, it becomes imperative to address noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) that account for a vast majority of health care expenses and premature disability-adjusted life years lost. The narrative of digital transformation in the realm of NCD public health is distinct from infectious diseases. Public health, with its multifaceted approach from disciplines such as medicine, epidemiology, and psychology, focuses on promoting healthy living and choices through functions categorized as "Assessment," "Policy Development," "Resource Allocation," "Assurance," and "Access." The power of artificial intelligence (AI) in this digital transformation is noteworthy. AI can automate repetitive tasks, facilitating health care providers to prioritize personal interactions, especially those that cannot be digitalized like emotional support. Moreover, AI presents tools for individuals to be proactive in their health management. However, the human touch remains irreplaceable; AI serves as a companion guiding through the health care landscape. Digital evolution, while revolutionary, poses its own set of challenges. Issues of equity and access are at the forefront. Vulnerable populations, whether due to economic constraints, geographical barriers, or digital illiteracy, face the threat of being marginalized further. This transformation mandates an inclusive strategy, focusing on not amplifying existing health disparities but eliminating them. Population-level digital interventions in NCD prevention demand societal agreement. Policies, like smoking bans or sugar taxes, though effective, might affect those not directly benefiting. Hence, all involved parties, from policy makers to the public, should have a balanced perspective on the advantages, risks, and expenses of these digital shifts. For a successful digital shift in public health, especially concerning NCDs, AI's potential to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, user experience, and equity-the "quadruple aim"-is undeniable. However, it is vital that AI-driven initiatives in public health domains remain purposeful, offering improvements without compromising other objectives. The broader success of digital public health hinges on transparent benchmarks and criteria, ensuring maximum benefits without sidelining minorities or vulnerable groups. Especially in population-centric decisions, like resource allocation, AI's ability to avoid bias is paramount. Therefore, the continuous involvement of stakeholders, including patients and minority groups, remains pivotal in the progression of AI-integrated digital public health.

Should AI allocate livers for transplant? Public attitudes and ethical considerations

BACKGROUND

Allocation of scarce organs for transplantation is ethically challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to assist in liver allocation, however the ethics of this remains unexplored and the view of the public unknown. The aim of this paper was to assess public attitudes on whether AI should be used in liver allocation and how it should be implemented.

METHODS

We first introduce some potential ethical issues concerning AI in liver allocation, before analysing a pilot survey including online responses from 172 UK laypeople, recruited through Prolific Academic.

FINDINGS

Most participants found AI in liver allocation acceptable (69.2%) and would not be less likely to donate their organs if AI was used in allocation (72.7%). Respondents thought AI was more likely to be consistent and less biased compared to humans, although were concerned about the "dehumanisation of healthcare" and whether AI could consider important nuances in allocation decisions. Participants valued accuracy, impartiality, and consistency in a decision-maker, more than interpretability and empathy. Respondents were split on whether AI should be trained on previous decisions or programmed with specific objectives. Whether allocation decisions were made by transplant committee or AI, participants valued consideration of urgency, survival likelihood, life years gained, age, future medication compliance, quality of life, future alcohol use and past alcohol use. On the other hand, the majority thought the following factors were not relevant to prioritisation: past crime, future crime, future societal contribution, social disadvantage, and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

There are good reasons to use AI in liver allocation, and our sample of participants appeared to support its use. If confirmed, this support would give democratic legitimacy to the use of AI in this context and reduce the risk that donation rates could be affected negatively. Our findings on specific ethical concerns also identify potential expectations and reservations laypeople have regarding AI in this area, which can inform how AI in liver allocation could be best implemented.