Artificial Intelligence and Patient-Centered Decision-Making

Public perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: ethical concerns and opportunities for patient-centered care

BACKGROUND

In an effort to improve the quality of medical care, the philosophy of patient-centered care has become integrated into almost every aspect of the medical community. Despite its widespread acceptance, among patients and practitioners, there are concerns that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence may threaten elements of patient-centered care, such as personal relationships with care providers and patient-driven choices. This study explores the extent to which patients are confident in and comfortable with the use of these technologies when it comes to their own individual care and identifies areas that may align with or threaten elements of patient-centered care.

METHODS

An exploratory, mixed-method approach was used to analyze survey data from 600 US-based adults in the State of Florida. The survey was administered through a leading market research provider (August 10-21, 2023), and responses were collected to be representative of the state's population based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and political affiliation.

RESULTS

Respondents were more comfortable with the use of AI in health-related tasks that were not associated with doctor-patient relationships, such as scheduling patient appointments or follow-ups (84.2%). Fear of losing the 'human touch' associated with doctors was a common theme within qualitative coding, suggesting a potential conflict between the implementation of AI and patient-centered care. In addition, decision self-efficacy was associated with higher levels of comfort with AI, but there were also concerns about losing decision-making control, workforce changes, and cost concerns. A small majority of participants mentioned that AI could be useful for doctors and lead to more equitable care but only when used within limits.

CONCLUSION

The application of AI in medical care is rapidly advancing, but oversight, regulation, and guidance addressing critical aspects of patient-centered care are lacking. While there is no evidence that AI will undermine patient-physician relationships at this time, there is concern on the part of patients regarding the application of AI within medical care and specifically as it relates to their interaction with physicians. Medical guidance on incorporating AI while adhering to the principles of patient-centered care is needed to clarify how AI will augment medical care.

Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Emergency Medicine: Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

The dawn of Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare stands as a milestone in medical innovation. Different medical fields are heavily involved, and pediatric emergency medicine is no exception. We conducted a narrative review structured in two parts. The first part explores the theoretical principles of AI, providing all the necessary background to feel confident with these new state-of-the-art tools. The second part presents an informative analysis of AI models in pediatric emergencies. We examined PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception up to April 2024. Key applications include triage optimization, predictive models for traumatic brain injury assessment, and computerized sepsis prediction systems. In each of these domains, AI models outperformed standard methods. The main barriers to a widespread adoption include technological challenges, but also ethical issues, age-related differences in data interpretation, and the paucity of comprehensive datasets in the pediatric context. Future feasible research directions should address the validation of models through prospective datasets with more numerous sample sizes of patients. Furthermore, our analysis shows that it is essential to tailor AI algorithms to specific medical needs. This requires a close partnership between clinicians and developers. Building a shared knowledge platform is therefore a key step.

Medical AI: is trust really the issue?

I discuss an influential argument put forward by Hatherley in the Journal of Medical Ethics Drawing on influential philosophical accounts of interpersonal trust, Hatherley claims that medical artificial intelligence is capable of being reliable, but not trustworthy. Furthermore, Hatherley argues that trust generates moral obligations on behalf of the trustee. For instance, when a patient trusts a clinician, it generates certain moral obligations on behalf of the clinician for her to do what she is entrusted to do. I make three objections to Hatherley's claims: (1) At least one philosophical account of interagent trust implies that medical AI is capable of being trustworthy. (2) Even if this account should ultimately be rejected, it does not matter much because what we care mostly about is that medical AI is reliable. (3) It is false that trust in itself generates moral obligations on behalf of the trustee.

Should the Use of Adaptive Machine Learning Systems in Medicine be Classified as Research?

A novel advantage of the use of machine learning (ML) systems in medicine is their potential to continue learning from new data after implementation in clinical practice. To date, considerations of the ethical questions raised by the design and use of adaptive machine learning systems in medicine have, for the most part, been confined to discussion of the so-called "update problem," which concerns how regulators should approach systems whose performance and parameters continue to change even after they have received regulatory approval. In this paper, we draw attention to a prior ethical question: whether the continuous learning that will occur in such systems after their initial deployment should be classified, and regulated, as medical research? We argue that there is a strong prima facie case that the use of continuous learning in medical ML systems should be categorized, and regulated, as research and that individuals whose treatment involves such systems should be treated as research subjects.

eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for improving organisational regility

Since the pandemic started, organisations have been actively seeking ways to improve their organisational agility and resilience (regility) and turn to Artificial Intelligence (AI) to gain a deeper understanding and further enhance their agility and regility. Organisations are turning to AI as a critical enabler to achieve these goals. AI empowers organisations by analysing large data sets quickly and accurately, enabling faster decision-making and building agility and resilience. This strategic use of AI gives businesses a competitive advantage and allows them to adapt to rapidly changing environments. Failure to prioritise agility and responsiveness can result in increased costs, missed opportunities, competition and reputational damage, and ultimately, loss of customers, revenue, profitability, and market share. Prioritising can be achieved by utilising eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques, illuminating how AI models make decisions and making them transparent, interpretable, and understandable. Based on previous research on using AI to predict organisational agility, this study focuses on integrating XAI techniques, such as Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), in organisational agility and resilience. By identifying the importance of different features that affect organisational agility prediction, this study aims to demystify the decision-making processes of the prediction model using XAI. This is essential for the ethical deployment of AI, fostering trust and transparency in these systems. Recognising key features in organisational agility prediction can guide companies in determining which areas to concentrate on in order to improve their agility and resilience.

Ethical use of artificial intelligence to prevent sudden cardiac death: an interview study of patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has prompted the development of numerous ethical guidelines, while the involvement of patients in the creation of these documents lags behind. As part of the European PROFID project we explore patient perspectives on the ethical implications of AI in care for patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD).

AIM

Explore perspectives of patients on the ethical use of AI, particularly in clinical decision-making regarding the implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS

Semi-structured, future scenario-based interviews were conducted among patients who had either an ICD and/or a heart condition with increased risk of SCD in Germany (n = 9) and the Netherlands (n = 15). We used the principles of the European Commission's Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI to structure the interviews.

RESULTS

Six themes arose from the interviews: the ability of AI to rectify human doctors' limitations; the objectivity of data; whether AI can serve as second opinion; AI explainability and patient trust; the importance of the 'human touch'; and the personalization of care. Overall, our results reveal a strong desire among patients for more personalized and patient-centered care in the context of ICD implantation. Participants in our study express significant concerns about the further loss of the 'human touch' in healthcare when AI is introduced in clinical settings. They believe that this aspect of care is currently inadequately recognized in clinical practice. Participants attribute to doctors the responsibility of evaluating AI recommendations for clinical relevance and aligning them with patients' individual contexts and values, in consultation with the patient.

CONCLUSION

The 'human touch' patients exclusively ascribe to human medical practitioners extends beyond sympathy and kindness, and has clinical relevance in medical decision-making. Because this cannot be replaced by AI, we suggest that normative research into the 'right to a human doctor' is needed. Furthermore, policies on patient-centered AI integration in clinical practice should encompass the ethics of everyday practice rather than only principle-based ethics. We suggest that an empirical ethics approach grounded in ethnographic research is exceptionally well-suited to pave the way forward.

Artificial intelligence in paediatric endocrinology: conflict or cooperation

Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is transforming healthcare by automating system tasks, assisting in diagnostics, predicting patient outcomes and personalising patient care, founded on the ability to analyse vast datasets. In paediatric endocrinology, AI has been developed for diabetes, for insulin dose adjustment, detection of hypoglycaemia and retinopathy screening; bone age assessment and thyroid nodule screening; the identification of growth disorders; the diagnosis of precocious puberty; and the use of facial recognition algorithms in conditions such as Cushing syndrome, acromegaly, congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Turner syndrome. AI can also predict those most at risk from childhood obesity by stratifying future interventions to modify lifestyle. AI will facilitate personalised healthcare by integrating data from 'omics' analysis, lifestyle tracking, medical history, laboratory and imaging, therapy response and treatment adherence from multiple sources. As data acquisition and processing becomes fundamental, data privacy and protecting children's health data is crucial. Minimising algorithmic bias generated by AI analysis for rare conditions seen in paediatric endocrinology is an important determinant of AI validity in clinical practice. AI cannot create the patient-doctor relationship or assess the wider holistic determinants of care. Children have individual needs and vulnerabilities and are considered in the context of family relationships and dynamics. Importantly, whilst AI provides value through augmenting efficiency and accuracy, it must not be used to replace clinical skills.

Ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine

ABSTRACT

This article reviews the main ethical issues that arise from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in medicine. Issues around trust, responsibility, risks of discrimination, privacy, autonomy, and potential benefits and harms are assessed. For better or worse, AI is a promising technology that can revolutionise healthcare delivery. It is up to us to make AI a tool for the good by ensuring that ethical oversight accompanies the design, development and implementation of AI technology in clinical practice.

Clinical Interviewing: An Essential but Neglected Method of Medicine

Clinical interviewing is the basic method to understand how a person feels and what are the presenting complaints, obtain medical history, evaluate personal attitudes and behavior related to health and disease, give the patient information about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, and establish a bond between patient and physician that is crucial for shared decision making and self-management. However, the value of this basic skill is threatened by time pressures and emphasis on technology. Current health care trends privilege expensive tests and procedures and tag the time devoted to interaction with the patient as lacking cost-effectiveness. Instead, the time spent to inquire about problems and life setting may actually help to avoid further testing, procedures, and referrals. Moreover, the dialogue between patient and physician is an essential instrument to increase patient's motivation to engage in healthy behavior. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of clinical interviewing and its optimal use in relation to style, flow and hypothesis testing, clinical domains, modifications according to settings and goals, and teaching. This review points to the primacy of interviewing in the clinical process. The quality of interviewing determines the quality of data that are collected and, eventually, of assessment and treatment. Thus, interviewing deserves more attention in educational training and more space in clinical encounters than it is currently receiving.

Role of Ethics in Developing AI-Based Applications in Medicine: Insights From Expert Interviews and Discussion of Implications

BACKGROUND

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-based applications in the medical field has increased significantly, offering potential improvements in patient care and diagnostics. However, alongside these advancements, there is growing concern about ethical considerations, such as bias, informed consent, and trust in the development of these technologies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the role of ethics in the development of AI-based applications in medicine. Furthermore, this study focuses on the potential consequences of neglecting ethical considerations in AI development, particularly their impact on patients and physicians.

METHODS

Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the responses from expert interviews. Experts were selected based on their involvement in the research or practical development of AI-based applications in medicine for at least 5 years, leading to the inclusion of 7 experts in the study.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed 3 main categories and 7 subcategories reflecting a wide range of views on the role of ethics in AI development. This variance underscores the subjectivity and complexity of integrating ethics into the development of AI in medicine. Although some experts view ethics as fundamental, others prioritize performance and efficiency, with some perceiving ethics as potential obstacles to technological progress. This dichotomy of perspectives clearly emphasizes the subjectivity and complexity surrounding the role of ethics in AI development, reflecting the inherent multifaceted nature of this issue.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the methodological limitations impacting the generalizability of the results, this study underscores the critical importance of consistent and integrated ethical considerations in AI development for medical applications. It advocates further research into effective strategies for ethical AI development, emphasizing the need for transparent and responsible practices, consideration of diverse data sources, physician training, and the establishment of comprehensive ethical and legal frameworks.

Deep learning techniques in PET/CT imaging: A comprehensive review from sinogram to image space

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is increasingly used in oncology, neurology, cardiology, and emerging medical fields. The success stems from the cohesive information that hybrid PET/CT imaging offers, surpassing the capabilities of individual modalities when used in isolation for different malignancies. However, manual image interpretation requires extensive disease-specific knowledge, and it is a time-consuming aspect of physicians' daily routines. Deep learning algorithms, akin to a practitioner during training, extract knowledge from images to facilitate the diagnosis process by detecting symptoms and enhancing images. This acquired knowledge aids in supporting the diagnosis process through symptom detection and image enhancement. The available review papers on PET/CT imaging have a drawback as they either included additional modalities or examined various types of AI applications. However, there has been a lack of comprehensive investigation specifically focused on the highly specific use of AI, and deep learning, on PET/CT images. This review aims to fill that gap by investigating the characteristics of approaches used in papers that employed deep learning for PET/CT imaging. Within the review, we identified 99 studies published between 2017 and 2022 that applied deep learning to PET/CT images. We also identified the best pre-processing algorithms and the most effective deep learning models reported for PET/CT while highlighting the current limitations. Our review underscores the potential of deep learning (DL) in PET/CT imaging, with successful applications in lesion detection, tumor segmentation, and disease classification in both sinogram and image spaces. Common and specific pre-processing techniques are also discussed. DL algorithms excel at extracting meaningful features, and enhancing accuracy and efficiency in diagnosis. However, limitations arise from the scarcity of annotated datasets and challenges in explainability and uncertainty. Recent DL models, such as attention-based models, generative models, multi-modal models, graph convolutional networks, and transformers, are promising for improving PET/CT studies. Additionally, radiomics has garnered attention for tumor classification and predicting patient outcomes. Ongoing research is crucial to explore new applications and improve the accuracy of DL models in this rapidly evolving field.

Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Healthcare: A Thematic Analysis of a Systematic Review of Reviews

Introduction

The use of artificial intelligence (AI), which can emulate human intelligence and enhance clinical results, has grown in healthcare decision-making due to the digitalization effects and the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to determine the scope of applications of AI tools in the decision-making process in healthcare service delivery networks.

Materials and methods

This study used a qualitative method to conduct a systematic review of the existing reviews. Review articles published between 2000 and 2024 in English-language were searched in PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Cochrane databases. The CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Checklist for Systematic Reviews was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. Based on the eligibility criteria, the final articles were selected and the data extraction was done independently by 2 authors. Finally, the thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data extracted from the selected articles.

Results

Of the 14 219 identified records, 18 review articles were eligible and included in the analysis, which covered the findings of 669 other articles. The quality assessment score of all reviewed articles was high. And, the thematic analysis of the data identified 3 main themes including clinical decision-making, organizational decision-making, and shared decision-making; which originated from 8 subthemes.

Conclusions

This study revealed that AI tools have been applied in various aspects of healthcare decision-making. The use of AI can improve the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of healthcare services by providing accurate, timely, and personalized information to support decision-making. Further research is needed to explore the best practices and standards for implementing AI in healthcare decision-making.

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.

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.

Triangle of Trust in Cancer Care? The Physician, the Patient, and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot

Trust, as a philosophic paradigm, is predominantly interpersonal, between human beings, and is differentiated from reliance. Can a person trust an inhumane amoral agent, such as a large language model artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, to manifest the goodwill and willingness normally required in order for it to be deemed trustworthy? This article explores the relationship between the cancer patient, their physician, and AI chatbot in a proposed tripartite, consultative, personalized approach to shared-care in precision molecular oncology. It examines the nature of trust between human agents and machines. It also contemplates AI-enhanced technical precision in state-of-the-art cancer management, complemented by trustworthy, holistic clinical care by a physician, for each individual patient. "To what extent can the user "trust" GPT-4?" Peter Lee,1 Microsoft Research 2023.

Patients' Views on AI for Risk Prediction in Shared Decision-Making for Knee Replacement Surgery: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making around knee replacement surgery is increasing, and this technology holds promise to improve the prediction of patient outcomes. Ambiguity surrounds the definition of AI, and there are mixed views on its application in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to explore the understanding and attitudes of patients who underwent knee replacement surgery regarding AI in the context of risk prediction for shared clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved patients who underwent knee replacement surgery at a tertiary referral center for joint replacement surgery. The participants were selected based on their age and sex. Semistructured interviews explored the participants' understanding of AI and their opinions on its use in shared clinical decision-making. Data collection and reflexive thematic analyses were conducted concurrently. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Thematic saturation was achieved with 19 interviews and confirmed with 1 additional interview, resulting in 20 participants being interviewed (female participants: n=11, 55%; male participants: n=9, 45%; median age: 66 years). A total of 11 (55%) participants had a substantial postoperative complication. Three themes captured the participants' understanding of AI and their perceptions of its use in shared clinical decision-making. The theme Expectations captured the participants' views of themselves as individuals with the right to self-determination as they sought therapeutic solutions tailored to their circumstances, needs, and desires, including whether to use AI at all. The theme Empowerment highlighted the potential of AI to enable patients to develop realistic expectations and equip them with personalized risk information to discuss in shared decision-making conversations with the surgeon. The theme Partnership captured the importance of symbiosis between AI and clinicians because AI has varied levels of interpretability and understanding of human emotions and empathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent knee replacement surgery in this study had varied levels of familiarity with AI and diverse conceptualizations of its definitions and capabilities. Educating patients about AI through nontechnical explanations and illustrative scenarios could help inform their decision to use it for risk prediction in the shared decision-making process with their surgeon. These findings could be used in the process of developing a questionnaire to ascertain the views of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery on the acceptability of AI in shared clinical decision-making. Future work could investigate the accuracy of this patient group's understanding of AI, beyond their familiarity with it, and how this influences their acceptance of its use. Surgeons may play a key role in finding a place for AI in the clinical setting as the uptake of this technology in health care continues to grow.

Black-box assisted medical decisions: AI power vs. ethical physician care

I raise an ethical problem with physicians using "black box" medical AI algorithms, arguing that its use would compromise proper patient care. Even if AI results are reliable, my contention is that without being able to explain medical decisions to patients, physicians' use of black box AIs would erode the effective and respectful care they provide patients. In addition, I argue that physicians should use AI black boxes only for patients in dire straits, or when physicians use AI as a "co-pilot" (analogous to a spellchecker) but can independently confirm its accuracy. My argument will be further sharpened when, lastly, I give important attention to Alex John London's objection that physicians already sometimes prescribe treatment, such as lithium drugs, even though neither researchers nor doctors can explain why the treatment works.

AI as an Epistemic Technology

In this paper I argue that Artificial Intelligence and the many data science methods associated with it, such as machine learning and large language models, are first and foremost epistemic technologies. In order to establish this claim, I first argue that epistemic technologies can be conceptually and practically distinguished from other technologies in virtue of what they are designed for, what they do and how they do it. I then proceed to show that unlike other kinds of technology (including other epistemic technologies) AI can be uniquely positioned as an epistemic technology in that it is primarily designed, developed and deployed to be used in epistemic contexts such as inquiry, it is specifically designed, developed and deployed to manipulate epistemic content such as data, and it is designed, developed and deployed to do so particularly through epistemic operations such as prediction and analysis. As has been shown in recent work in the philosophy and ethics of AI (Alvarado, AI and Ethics, 2022a), understanding AI as an epistemic technology will also have significant implications for important debates regarding our relationship to AI technologies. This paper includes a brief overview of such implications, particularly those pertaining to explainability, opacity, trust and even epistemic harms related to AI technologies.

Evidence, ethics and the promise of artificial intelligence in psychiatry

Researchers are studying how artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to better detect, prognosticate and subgroup diseases. The idea that AI might advance medicine's understanding of biological categories of psychiatric disorders, as well as provide better treatments, is appealing given the historical challenges with prediction, diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry. Given the power of AI to analyse vast amounts of information, some clinicians may feel obligated to align their clinical judgements with the outputs of the AI system. However, a potential epistemic privileging of AI in clinical judgements may lead to unintended consequences that could negatively affect patient treatment, well-being and rights. The implications are also relevant to precision medicine, digital twin technologies and predictive analytics generally. We propose that a commitment to epistemic humility can help promote judicious clinical decision-making at the interface of big data and AI in psychiatry.

Explainable online health information truthfulness in Consumer Health Search

Introduction

People are today increasingly relying on health information they find online to make decisions that may impact both their physical and mental wellbeing. Therefore, there is a growing need for systems that can assess the truthfulness of such health information. Most of the current literature solutions use machine learning or knowledge-based approaches treating the problem as a binary classification task, discriminating between correct information and misinformation. Such solutions present several problems with regard to user decision making, among which: (i) the binary classification task provides users with just two predetermined possibilities with respect to the truthfulness of the information, which users should take for granted; indeed, (ii) the processes by which the results were obtained are often opaque and the results themselves have little or no interpretation.

Methods

To address these issues, we approach the problem as an ad hoc retrieval task rather than a classification task, with reference, in particular, to the Consumer Health Search task. To do this, a previously proposed Information Retrieval model, which considers information truthfulness as a dimension of relevance, is used to obtain a ranked list of both topically-relevant and truthful documents. The novelty of this work concerns the extension of such a model with a solution for the explainability of the results obtained, by relying on a knowledge base consisting of scientific evidence in the form of medical journal articles.

Results and discussion

We evaluate the proposed solution both quantitatively, as a standard classification task, and qualitatively, through a user study to examine the "explained" ranked list of documents. The results obtained illustrate the solution's effectiveness and usefulness in making the retrieved results more interpretable by Consumer Health Searchers, both with respect to topical relevance and truthfulness.

The impact of artificial intelligence on the person-centred, doctor-patient relationship: some problems and solutions

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often cited as a possible solution to current issues faced by healthcare systems. This includes the freeing up of time for doctors and facilitating person-centred doctor-patient relationships. However, given the novelty of artificial intelligence tools, there is very little concrete evidence on their impact on the doctor-patient relationship or on how to ensure that they are implemented in a way which is beneficial for person-centred care.Given the importance of empathy and compassion in the practice of person-centred care, we conducted a literature review to explore how AI impacts these two values. Besides empathy and compassion, shared decision-making, and trust relationships emerged as key values in the reviewed papers. We identified two concrete ways which can help ensure that the use of AI tools have a positive impact on person-centred doctor-patient relationships. These are (1) using AI tools in an assistive role and (2) adapting medical education. The study suggests that we need to take intentional steps in order to ensure that the deployment of AI tools in healthcare has a positive impact on person-centred doctor-patient relationships. We argue that the proposed solutions are contingent upon clarifying the values underlying future healthcare systems.

Guiding principles for the responsible development of artificial intelligence tools for healthcare

Several principles have been proposed to improve use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, but the need for AI to improve longstanding healthcare challenges has not been sufficiently emphasized. We propose that AI should be designed to alleviate health disparities, report clinically meaningful outcomes, reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, have high healthcare value, consider biographical drivers of health, be easily tailored to the local population, promote a learning healthcare system, and facilitate shared decision-making. These principles are illustrated by examples from breast cancer research and we provide questions that can be used by AI developers when applying each principle to their work.

Benchmarking of Machine Learning classifiers on plasma proteomic for COVID-19 severity prediction through interpretable artificial intelligence

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic highlighted the need for software tools that could facilitate patient triage regarding potential disease severity or even death. In this article, an ensemble of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms is evaluated in terms of predicting the severity of their condition using plasma proteomics and clinical data as input. An overview of AI-based technical developments to support COVID-19 patient management is presented outlining the landscape of relevant technical developments. Based on this review, the use of an ensemble of ML algorithms that analyze clinical and biological data (i.e., plasma proteomics) of COVID-19 patients is designed and deployed to evaluate the potential use of AI for early COVID-19 patient triage. The proposed pipeline is evaluated using three publicly available datasets for training and testing. Three ML "tasks" are defined, and several algorithms are tested through a hyperparameter tuning method to identify the highest-performance models. As overfitting is one of the typical pitfalls for such approaches (mainly due to the size of the training/validation datasets), a variety of evaluation metrics are used to mitigate this risk. In the evaluation procedure, recall scores ranged from 0.6 to 0.74 and F1-score from 0.62 to 0.75. The best performance is observed via Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) and Support Vector Machines (SVM) algorithms. Additionally, input data (proteomics and clinical data) were ranked based on corresponding Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values and evaluated for their prognosticated capacity and immuno-biological credence. This "interpretable" approach revealed that our ML models could discern critical COVID-19 cases predominantly based on patient's age and plasma proteins on B cell dysfunction, hyper-activation of inflammatory pathways like Toll-like receptors, and hypo-activation of developmental and immune pathways like SCF/c-Kit signaling. Finally, the herein computational workflow is corroborated in an independent dataset and MLP superiority along with the implication of the abovementioned predictive biological pathways are corroborated. Regarding limitations of the presented ML pipeline, the datasets used in this study contain less than 1000 observations and a significant number of input features hence constituting a high-dimensional low-sample (HDLS) dataset which could be sensitive to overfitting. An advantage of the proposed pipeline is that it combines biological data (plasma proteomics) with clinical-phenotypic data. Thus, in principle, the presented approach could enable patient triage in a timely fashion if used on already trained models. However, larger datasets and further systematic validation are needed to confirm the potential clinical value of this approach. The code is available on Github: https://github.com/inab-certh/Predicting-COVID-19-severity-through-interpretable-AI-analysis-of-plasma-proteomics.

Uncertainty, Evidence, and the Integration of Machine Learning into Medical Practice

In light of recent advances in machine learning for medical applications, the automation of medical diagnostics is imminent. That said, before machine learning algorithms find their way into clinical practice, various problems at the epistemic level need to be overcome. In this paper, we discuss different sources of uncertainty arising for clinicians trying to evaluate the trustworthiness of algorithmic evidence when making diagnostic judgments. Thereby, we examine many of the limitations of current machine learning algorithms (with deep learning in particular) and highlight their relevance for medical diagnostics. Among the problems we inspect are the theoretical foundations of deep learning (which are not yet adequately understood), the opacity of algorithmic decisions, and the vulnerabilities of machine learning models, as well as concerns regarding the quality of medical data used to train the models. Building on this, we discuss different desiderata for an uncertainty amelioration strategy that ensures that the integration of machine learning into clinical settings proves to be medically beneficial in a meaningful way.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Care: A Values-Based Guide for Shared Decision Making

Clinical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, including in the field of oncology, have the potential to advance diagnosis and treatment. The literature suggests that patient values should be considered in decision making when using AI in clinical care; however, there is a lack of practical guidance for clinicians on how to approach these conversations and incorporate patient values into clinical decision making. We provide a practical, values-based guide for clinicians to assist in critical reflection and the incorporation of patient values into shared decision making when deciding to use AI in clinical care. Values that are relevant to patients, identified in the literature, include trust, privacy and confidentiality, non-maleficence, safety, accountability, beneficence, autonomy, transparency, compassion, equity, justice, and fairness. The guide offers questions for clinicians to consider when adopting the potential use of AI in their practice; explores illness understanding between the patient and clinician; encourages open dialogue of patient values; reviews all clinically appropriate options; and makes a shared decision of what option best meets the patient's values. The guide can be used for diverse clinical applications of AI.

Randomised controlled trials in medical AI: ethical considerations

In recent years, there has been a surge of high-profile publications on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for medical diagnosis and prognosis. While AI provides various opportunities for medical practice, there is an emerging consensus that the existing studies show considerable deficits and are unable to establish the clinical benefit of AI systems. Hence, the view that the clinical benefit of AI systems needs to be studied in clinical trials-particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-is gaining ground. However, an issue that has been overlooked so far in the debate is that, compared with drug RCTs, AI RCTs require methodological adjustments, which entail ethical challenges. This paper sets out to develop a systematic account of the ethics of AI RCTs by focusing on the moral principles of clinical equipoise, informed consent and fairness. This way, the objective is to animate further debate on the (research) ethics of medical AI.

Explainable AI for clinical and remote health applications: a survey on tabular and time series data

Nowadays Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a fundamental component of healthcare applications, both clinical and remote, but the best performing AI systems are often too complex to be self-explaining. Explainable AI (XAI) techniques are defined to unveil the reasoning behind the system’s predictions and decisions, and they become even more critical when dealing with sensitive and personal health data. It is worth noting that XAI has not gathered the same attention across different research areas and data types, especially in healthcare. In particular, many clinical and remote health applications are based on tabular and time series data, respectively, and XAI is not commonly analysed on these data types, while computer vision and Natural Language Processing (NLP) are the reference applications. To provide an overview of XAI methods that are most suitable for tabular and time series data in the healthcare domain, this paper provides a review of the literature in the last 5 years, illustrating the type of generated explanations and the efforts provided to evaluate their relevance and quality. Specifically, we identify clinical validation, consistency assessment, objective and standardised quality evaluation, and human-centered quality assessment as key features to ensure effective explanations for the end users. Finally, we highlight the main research challenges in the field as well as the limitations of existing XAI methods.

Enabling Fairness in Healthcare Through Machine Learning

The use of machine learning systems for decision-support in healthcare may exacerbate health inequalities. However, recent work suggests that algorithms trained on sufficiently diverse datasets could in principle combat health inequalities. One concern about these algorithms is that their performance for patients in traditionally disadvantaged groups exceeds their performance for patients in traditionally advantaged groups. This renders the algorithmic decisions unfair relative to the standard fairness metrics in machine learning. In this paper, we defend the permissible use of affirmative algorithms; that is, algorithms trained on diverse datasets that perform better for traditionally disadvantaged groups. Whilst such algorithmic decisions may be unfair, the fairness of algorithmic decisions is not the appropriate locus of moral evaluation. What matters is the fairness of final decisions, such as diagnoses, resulting from collaboration between clinicians and algorithms. We argue that affirmative algorithms can permissibly be deployed provided the resultant final decisions are fair.

Ethics of AI in Radiology: A Review of Ethical and Societal Implications

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being applied in medicine to improve healthcare and advance health equity. The application of AI-based technologies in radiology is expected to improve diagnostic performance by increasing accuracy and simplifying personalized decision-making. While this technology has the potential to improve health services, many ethical and societal implications need to be carefully considered to avoid harmful consequences for individuals and groups, especially for the most vulnerable populations. Therefore, several questions are raised, including (1) what types of ethical issues are raised by the use of AI in medicine and biomedical research, and (2) how are these issues being tackled in radiology, especially in the case of breast cancer? To answer these questions, a systematic review of the academic literature was conducted. Searches were performed in five electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed articles published since 2017 on the topic of the ethics of AI in radiology. The review results show that the discourse has mainly addressed expectations and challenges associated with medical AI, and in particular bias and black box issues, and that various guiding principles have been suggested to ensure ethical AI. We found that several ethical and societal implications of AI use remain underexplored, and more attention needs to be paid to addressing potential discriminatory effects and injustices. We conclude with a critical reflection on these issues and the identified gaps in the discourse from a philosophical and STS perspective, underlining the need to integrate a social science perspective in AI developments in radiology in the future.

Design publicity of black box algorithms: a support to the epistemic and ethical justifications of medical AI systems

In their article 'Who is afraid of black box algorithms? On the epistemological and ethical basis of trust in medical AI', Durán and Jongsma discuss the epistemic and ethical challenges raised by black box algorithms in medical practice. The opacity of black box algorithms is an obstacle to the trustworthiness of their outcomes. Moreover, the use of opaque algorithms is not normatively justified in medical practice. The authors introduce a formalism, called computational reliabilism, which allows generating justified beliefs on the algorithm reliability and trustworthy outcomes of artificial intelligence (AI) systems by means of epistemic warrants, called reliability indicators. However, they remark the need for reliability indicators specific to black box algorithms and that justified knowledge is not sufficient to justify normatively the actions of the physicians using medical AI systems. Therefore, Durán and Jongsma advocate for a more transparent design and implementation of black box algorithms, providing a series of recommendations to mitigate the epistemic and ethical challenges behind their use in medical practice. In this response, I argue that a peculiar form of black box algorithm transparency, called design publicity, may efficiently implement these recommendations. Design publicity encodes epistemic, that is, reliability indicators, and ethical recommendations for black box algorithms by means of four subtypes of transparency. These target the values and goals, their translation into design requirements, the performance and consistency of the algorithm altogether. I discuss design publicity applying it to a use case focused on the automated classification of skin lesions from medical images.

The Deception of Certainty: how Non-Interpretable Machine Learning Outcomes Challenge the Epistemic Authority of Physicians. A deliberative-relational Approach

Developments in Machine Learning (ML) have attracted attention in a wide range of healthcare fields to improve medical practice and the benefit of patients. Particularly, this should be achieved by providing more or less automated decision recommendations to the treating physician. However, some hopes placed in ML for healthcare seem to be disappointed, at least in part, by a lack of transparency or traceability. Skepticism exists primarily in the fact that the physician, as the person responsible for diagnosis, therapy, and care, has no or insufficient insight into how such recommendations are reached. The following paper aims to make understandable the specificity of the deliberative model of a physician-patient relationship that has been achieved over decades. By outlining the (social-)epistemic and inherently normative relationship between physicians and patients, I want to show how this relationship might be altered by non-traceable ML recommendations. With respect to some healthcare decisions, such changes in deliberative practice may create normatively far-reaching challenges. Therefore, in the future, a differentiation of decision-making situations in healthcare with respect to the necessary depth of insight into the process of outcome generation seems essential.

Responsibility, second opinions and peer-disagreement: ethical and epistemological challenges of using AI in clinical diagnostic contexts

In this paper, we first classify different types of second opinions and evaluate the ethical and epistemological implications of providing those in a clinical context. Second, we discuss the issue of how artificial intelligent (AI) could replace the human cognitive labour of providing such second opinion and find that several AI reach the levels of accuracy and efficiency needed to clarify their use an urgent ethical issue. Third, we outline the normative conditions of how AI may be used as second opinion in clinical processes, weighing the benefits of its efficiency against concerns of responsibility attribution. Fourth, we provide a 'rule of disagreement' that fulfils these conditions while retaining some of the benefits of expanding the use of AI-based decision support systems (AI-DSS) in clinical contexts. This is because the rule of disagreement proposes to use AI as much as possible, but retain the ability to use human second opinions to resolve disagreements between AI and physician-in-charge. Fifth, we discuss some counterarguments.

Ethical, legal, and social considerations of AI-based medical decision-support tools: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Recent developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) applied to healthcare promise to solve many of the existing global issues in advancing human health and managing global health challenges. This comprehensive review aims not only to surface the underlying ethical and legal but also social implications (ELSI) that have been overlooked in recent reviews while deserving equal attention in the development stage, and certainly ahead of implementation in healthcare. It is intended to guide various stakeholders (eg. designers, engineers, clinicians) in addressing the ELSI of AI at the design stage using the Ethics by Design (EbD) approach.

METHODS

The authors followed a systematised scoping methodology and searched the following databases: Pubmed, Web of science, Ovid, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, EBSCO Search (Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, APA PsycArticles, ERIC) for the ELSI of AI in healthcare through January 2021. Data were charted and synthesised, and the authors conducted a descriptive and thematic analysis of the collected data.

RESULTS

After reviewing 1108 papers, 94 were included in the final analysis. Our results show a growing interest in the academic community for ELSI in the field of AI. The main issues of concern identified in our analysis fall into four main clusters of impact: AI algorithms, physicians, patients, and healthcare in general. The most prevalent issues are patient safety, algorithmic transparency, lack of proper regulation, liability & accountability, impact on patient-physician relationship and governance of AI empowered healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review confirm the potential of AI to significantly improve patient care, but the drawbacks to its implementation relate to complex ELSI that have yet to be addressed. Most ELSI refer to the impact on and extension of the reciprocal and fiduciary patient-physician relationship. With the integration of AIbased decision making tools, a bilateral patient-physician relationship may shift into a trilateral one.

AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: proceed with care

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being used in healthcare, thanks to the high level of performance that these systems have proven to deliver. So far, clinical applications have focused on diagnosis and on prediction of outcomes. It is less clear in what way AI can or should support complex clinical decisions that crucially depend on patient preferences. In this paper, we focus on the ethical questions arising from the design, development and deployment of AI systems to support decision-making around cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the determination of a patient's Do Not Attempt to Resuscitate status (also known as code status). The COVID-19 pandemic has made us keenly aware of the difficulties physicians encounter when they have to act quickly in stressful situations without knowing what their patient would have wanted. We discuss the results of an interview study conducted with healthcare professionals in a university hospital aimed at understanding the status quo of resuscitation decision processes while exploring a potential role for AI systems in decision-making around code status. Our data suggest that (1) current practices are fraught with challenges such as insufficient knowledge regarding patient preferences, time pressure and personal bias guiding care considerations and (2) there is considerable openness among clinicians to consider the use of AI-based decision support. We suggest a model for how AI can contribute to improve decision-making around resuscitation and propose a set of ethically relevant preconditions-conceptual, methodological and procedural-that need to be considered in further development and implementation efforts.

When Doctors and AI Interact: on Human Responsibility for Artificial Risks

A discussion concerning whether to conceive Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems as responsible moral entities, also known as “artificial moral agents” (AMAs), has been going on for some time. In this regard, we argue that the notion of “moral agency” is to be attributed only to humans based on their autonomy and sentience, which AI systems lack. We analyze human responsibility in the presence of AI systems in terms of meaningful control and due diligence and argue against fully automated systems in medicine. With this perspective in mind, we focus on the use of AI-based diagnostic systems and shed light on the complex networks of persons, organizations and artifacts that come to be when AI systems are designed, developed, and used in medicine. We then discuss relational criteria of judgment in support of the attribution of responsibility to humans when adverse events are caused or induced by errors in AI systems.

Explanatory pragmatism: a context-sensitive framework for explainable medical AI

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is an emerging, multidisciplinary field of research that seeks to develop methods and tools for making AI systems more explainable or interpretable. XAI researchers increasingly recognise explainability as a context-, audience- and purpose-sensitive phenomenon, rather than a single well-defined property that can be directly measured and optimised. However, since there is currently no overarching definition of explainability, this poses a risk of miscommunication between the many different researchers within this multidisciplinary space. This is the problem we seek to address in this paper. We outline a framework, called Explanatory Pragmatism, which we argue has two attractive features. First, it allows us to conceptualise explainability in explicitly context-, audience- and purpose-relative terms, while retaining a unified underlying definition of explainability. Second, it makes visible any normative disagreements that may underpin conflicting claims about explainability regarding the purposes for which explanations are sought. Third, it allows us to distinguish several dimensions of AI explainability. We illustrate this framework by applying it to a case study involving a machine learning model for predicting whether patients suffering disorders of consciousness were likely to recover consciousness.

Improving the Process of Shared Decision-Making by Integrating Online Structured Information and Self-Assessment Tools

The integration of face-to-face communication and online processes to provide access to information and self-assessment tools may improve shared decision-making (SDM) processes. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of implementing an online SDM process with topics and content developed through a participatory design approach. We analyzed the triggered and completed SDM cases with responses from participants at a medical center in Taiwan. Data were retrieved from the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database of the hospital for analysis. Each team developed web-based patient decision aids (PDA) with empirical evidence in a multi-digitized manner, allowing patients to scan QR codes on a leaflet using their mobile phones and then read the PDA content online. From July 2019 to December 2020, 48 web-based SDM topics were implemented in the 24 clinical departments of this hospital. The results showed that using the REDCap system improved SDM efficiency and quality. Implementing an online SDM process integrated with face-to-face communication enhanced the practice and effectiveness of SDM, possibly through the flexibility of accessing information, self-assessment, and feedback evaluation.

Implementation Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence Translation Into Health Care Practice: Scoping Review

Background

Significant efforts have been made to develop artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for health care improvement. Despite the enthusiasm, health care professionals still struggle to implement AI in their daily practice.

Objective

This paper aims to identify the implementation frameworks used to understand the application of AI in health care practice.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted using the Cochrane, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases to identify publications that reported frameworks, models, and theories concerning AI implementation in health care. This review focused on studies published in English and investigating AI implementation in health care since 2000. A total of 2541 unique publications were retrieved from the databases and screened on titles and abstracts by 2 independent reviewers. Selected articles were thematically analyzed against the Nilsen taxonomy of implementation frameworks, and the Greenhalgh framework for the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) of health care technologies.

Results

In total, 7 articles met all eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, and 2 articles included formal frameworks that directly addressed AI implementation, whereas the other articles provided limited descriptions of elements influencing implementation. Collectively, the 7 articles identified elements that aligned with all the NASSS domains, but no single article comprehensively considered the factors known to influence technology implementation. New domains were identified, including dependency on data input and existing processes, shared decision-making, the role of human oversight, and ethics of population impact and inequality, suggesting that existing frameworks do not fully consider the unique needs of AI implementation.

Conclusions

This literature review demonstrates that understanding how to implement AI in health care practice is still in its early stages of development. Our findings suggest that further research is needed to provide the knowledge necessary to develop implementation frameworks to guide the future implementation of AI in clinical practice and highlight the opportunity to draw on existing knowledge from the field of implementation science.

Guidelines for artificial intelligence in medicine: A literature review and content analysis of frameworks (Preprint)

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding in medicine despite a lack of consensus on its application and evaluation.

Objective

We sought to identify current frameworks guiding the application and evaluation of AI for predictive analytics in medicine and to describe the content of these frameworks. We also assessed what stages along the AI translational spectrum (ie, AI development, reporting, evaluation, implementation, and surveillance) the content of each framework has been discussed.

Methods

We performed a literature review of frameworks regarding the oversight of AI in medicine. The search included key topics such as “artificial intelligence,” “machine learning,” “guidance as topic,” and “translational science,” and spanned the time period 2014-2022. Documents were included if they provided generalizable guidance regarding the use or evaluation of AI in medicine. Included frameworks are summarized descriptively and were subjected to content analysis. A novel evaluation matrix was developed and applied to appraise the frameworks’ coverage of content areas across translational stages.

Results

Fourteen frameworks are featured in the review, including six frameworks that provide descriptive guidance and eight that provide reporting checklists for medical applications of AI. Content analysis revealed five considerations related to the oversight of AI in medicine across frameworks: transparency, reproducibility, ethics, effectiveness, and engagement. All frameworks include discussions regarding transparency, reproducibility, ethics, and effectiveness, while only half of the frameworks discuss engagement. The evaluation matrix revealed that frameworks were most likely to report AI considerations for the translational stage of development and were least likely to report considerations for the translational stage of surveillance.

Conclusions

Existing frameworks for the application and evaluation of AI in medicine notably offer less input on the role of engagement in oversight and regarding the translational stage of surveillance. Identifying and optimizing strategies for engagement are essential to ensure that AI can meaningfully benefit patients and other end users.

Is it alright to use artificial intelligence in digital health? A systematic literature review on ethical considerations

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) not only yields in advantages for healthcare but raises several ethical questions. Extant research on ethical considerations of AI in digital health is quite sparse and a holistic overview is lacking. A systematic literature review searching across 853 peer-reviewed journals and conferences yielded in 50 relevant articles categorized in five major ethical principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability. The ethical landscape of AI in digital health is portrayed including a snapshot guiding future development. The status quo highlights potential areas with little empirical but required research. Less explored areas with remaining ethical questions are validated and guide scholars' efforts by outlining an overview of addressed ethical principles and intensity of studies including correlations. Practitioners understand novel questions AI raises eventually leading to properly regulated implementations and further comprehend that society is on its way from supporting technologies to autonomous decision-making systems.

Biased Face Recognition Technology Used by Government: A Problem for Liberal Democracy

This paper presents a novel philosophical analysis of the problem of law enforcement’s use of biased face recognition technology (FRT) in liberal democracies. FRT programs used by law enforcement in identifying crime suspects are substantially more error-prone on facial images depicting darker skin tones and females as compared to facial images depicting Caucasian males. This bias can lead to citizens being wrongfully investigated by police along racial and gender lines. The author develops and defends “A Liberal Argument Against Biased FRT,” which concludes that law enforcement use of biased FRT is inconsistent with the classical liberal requirement that government treat all citizens equally before the law. Two objections to this argument are considered and shown to be unsound. The author concludes by suggesting that equality before the law should be preserved while the problem of machine bias ought to be resolved before FRT and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) are deployed by governments in liberal democracies.

Reflections on epistemological aspects of artificial intelligence during the COVID-19 pandemic

Artificial intelligence plays an important role and has been used by several countries as a health strategy in an attempt to understand, control and find a cure for the disease caused by Coronavirus. These intelligent systems can assist in accelerating the process of developing antivirals for Coronavirus and in predicting new variants of this virus. For this reason, much research on COVID-19 has been developed with the aim of contributing to new discoveries about the Coronavirus. However, there are some epistemological aspects about the use of AI in this pandemic period of Covid-19 that deserve to be discussed and need reflections. In this scenario, this article presents a reflection on the two epistemological aspects faced by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) The epistemological aspect resulting from the use of patient data to fill the knowledge base of intelligent systems; (2) the epistemological problem arising from the dependence of health professionals on the results/diagnoses issued by intelligent systems. In addition, we present some epistemological challenges to be implemented in a pandemic period.

Digital Technologies and Data Science as Health Enablers: An Outline of Appealing Promises and Compelling Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges

Digital technologies and data science have laid down the promise to revolutionize healthcare by transforming the way health and disease are analyzed and managed in the future. Digital health applications in healthcare include telemedicine, electronic health records, wearable, implantable, injectable and ingestible digital medical devices, health mobile apps as well as the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to medical and public health prognosis and decision-making. As is often the case with technological advancement, progress in digital health raises compelling ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). This article aims to succinctly map relevant ELSI of the digital health field. The issues of patient autonomy; assessment, value attribution, and validation of health innovation; equity and trustworthiness in healthcare; professional roles and skills and data protection and security are highlighted against the backdrop of the risks of dehumanization of care, the limitations of machine learning-based decision-making and, ultimately, the future contours of human interaction in medicine and public health. The running theme to this article is the underlying tension between the promises of digital health and its many challenges, which is heightened by the contrasting pace of scientific progress and the timed responses provided by law and ethics. Digital applications can prove to be valuable allies for human skills in medicine and public health. Similarly, ethics and the law can be interpreted and perceived as more than obstacles, but also promoters of fairness, inclusiveness, creativity and innovation in health.

From clinical decision support to clinical reasoning support systems

Despite the great promises that artificial intelligence (AI) holds for health care, the uptake of such technologies into medical practice is slow. In this paper, we focus on the epistemological issues arising from the development and implementation of a class of AI for clinical practice, namely clinical decision support systems (CDSS). We will first provide an overview of the epistemic tasks of medical professionals, and then analyse which of these tasks can be supported by CDSS, while also explaining why some of them should remain the territory of human experts. Clinical decision making involves a reasoning process in which clinicians combine different types of information into a coherent and adequate 'picture of the patient' that enables them to draw explainable and justifiable conclusions for which they bear epistemological responsibility. Therefore, we suggest that it is more appropriate to think of a CDSS as clinical reasoning support systems (CRSS). Developing CRSS that support clinicians' reasoning process therefore requires that: (a) CRSSs are developed on the basis of relevant and well-processed data; and (b) the system facilitates an interaction with the clinician. Therefore, medical experts must collaborate closely with AI experts developing the CRSS. In addition, responsible use of an CRSS requires that the data generated by the CRSS is empirically justified through an empirical link with the individual patient. In practice, this means that the system indicates what factors contributed to arriving at an advice, allowing the user (clinician) to evaluate whether these factors are medically plausible and applicable to the patient. Finally, we defend that proper implementation of CRSS allows combining human and artificial intelligence into hybrid intelligence, were both perform clearly delineated and complementary empirical tasks. Whereas CRSSs can assist with statistical reasoning and finding patterns in complex data, it is the clinicians' task to interpret, integrate and contextualize.

Shared decision-making and maternity care in the deep learning age: Acknowledging and overcoming inherited defeaters

In recent years there has been an explosion of interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) both in health care and academic philosophy. This has been due mainly to the rise of effective machine learning and deep learning algorithms, together with increases in data collection and processing power, which have made rapid progress in many areas. However, use of this technology has brought with it philosophical issues and practical problems, in particular, epistemic and ethical. In this paper the authors, with backgrounds in philosophy, maternity care practice and clinical research, draw upon and extend a recent framework for shared decision-making (SDM) that identified a duty of care to the client's knowledge as a necessary condition for SDM. This duty entails the responsibility to acknowledge and overcome epistemic defeaters. This framework is applied to the use of AI in maternity care, in particular, the use of machine learning and deep learning technology to attempt to enhance electronic fetal monitoring (EFM). In doing so, various sub-kinds of epistemic defeater, namely, transparent, opaque, underdetermined, and inherited defeaters are taxonomized and discussed. The authors argue that, although effective current or future AI-enhanced EFM may impose an epistemic obligation on the part of clinicians to rely on such systems' predictions or diagnoses as input to SDM, such obligations may be overridden by inherited defeaters, caused by a form of algorithmic bias. The existence of inherited defeaters implies that the duty of care to the client's knowledge extends to any situation in which a clinician (or anyone else) is involved in producing training data for a system that will be used in SDM. Any future AI must be capable of assessing women individually, taking into account a wide range of factors including women's preferences, to provide a holistic range of evidence for clinical decision-making.

Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective

BACKGROUND

Explainability is one of the most heavily debated topics when it comes to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. Even though AI-driven systems have been shown to outperform humans in certain analytical tasks, the lack of explainability continues to spark criticism. Yet, explainability is not a purely technological issue, instead it invokes a host of medical, legal, ethical, and societal questions that require thorough exploration. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the role of explainability in medical AI and makes an ethical evaluation of what explainability means for the adoption of AI-driven tools into clinical practice.

METHODS

Taking AI-based clinical decision support systems as a case in point, we adopted a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the relevance of explainability for medical AI from the technological, legal, medical, and patient perspectives. Drawing on the findings of this conceptual analysis, we then conducted an ethical assessment using the "Principles of Biomedical Ethics" by Beauchamp and Childress (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) as an analytical framework to determine the need for explainability in medical AI.

RESULTS

Each of the domains highlights a different set of core considerations and values that are relevant for understanding the role of explainability in clinical practice. From the technological point of view, explainability has to be considered both in terms how it can be achieved and what is beneficial from a development perspective. When looking at the legal perspective we identified informed consent, certification and approval as medical devices, and liability as core touchpoints for explainability. Both the medical and patient perspectives emphasize the importance of considering the interplay between human actors and medical AI. We conclude that omitting explainability in clinical decision support systems poses a threat to core ethical values in medicine and may have detrimental consequences for individual and public health.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure that medical AI lives up to its promises, there is a need to sensitize developers, healthcare professionals, and legislators to the challenges and limitations of opaque algorithms in medical AI and to foster multidisciplinary collaboration moving forward.