Primer on an ethics of AI-based decision support systems in the clinic

RCC-Supporter: supporting renal cell carcinoma treatment decision-making using machine learning

BACKGROUND

The population diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma, especially in Asia, represents 36.6% of global cases, with the incidence rate of renal cell carcinoma in Korea steadily increasing annually. However, treatment options for renal cell carcinoma are diverse, depending on clinical stage and histologic characteristics. Hence, this study aims to develop a machine learning based clinical decision-support system that recommends personalized treatment tailored to the individual health condition of each patient.

RESULTS

We reviewed the real-world medical data of 1,867 participants diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma between November 2008 and June 2021 at the Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital in South Korea. Data were manually divided into a follow-up group where the patients did not undergo surgery or chemotherapy (Surveillance), a group where the patients underwent surgery (Surgery), and a group where the patients received chemotherapy before or after surgery (Chemotherapy). Feature selection was conducted to identify the significant clinical factors influencing renal cell carcinoma treatment decisions from 2,058 features. These features included subsets of 20, 50, 75, 100, and 150, as well as the complete set and an additional 50 expert-selected features. We applied representative machine learning algorithms, namely Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM). We analyzed the performance of three applied machine learning algorithms, among which the GBM algorithm achieved an accuracy score of 95% (95% CI, 92-98%) for the 100 and 150 feature sets. The GBM algorithm using 100 and 150 features achieved better performance than the algorithm using features selected by clinical experts (93%, 95% CI 89-97%).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a preliminary personalized treatment decision-support system (TDSS) called "RCC-Supporter" by applying machine learning (ML) algorithms to determine personalized treatment for the various clinical situations of RCC patients. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of using machine learning-based clinical decision support systems for treatment decisions in real clinical settings.

Prediction of sudden cardiac death using artificial intelligence: Current status and future directions

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains a pressing health issue, affecting hundreds of thousands each year globally. The heterogeneity among SCD victims, ranging from individuals with severe heart failure to seemingly healthy individuals, poses a significant challenge for effective risk assessment. Conventional risk stratification, which primarily relies on left ventricular ejection fraction, has resulted in only modest efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for SCD prevention. In response, artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise for personalized SCD risk prediction and tailoring preventive strategies to the unique profiles of individual patients. Machine and deep learning algorithms have the capability to learn intricate nonlinear patterns between complex data and defined end points and leverage these to identify subtle indicators and predictors of SCD that may not be apparent through traditional statistical analysis. However, despite the potential of AI to improve SCD risk stratification, there are important limitations that need to be addressed. We aim to provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art of AI prediction models for SCD, highlight the opportunities for these models in clinical practice, and identify the key challenges hindering widespread adoption.

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

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

Impacts of Clinical Decision Support Systems on the Relationship, Communication, and Shared Decision-Making Between Health Care Professionals and Patients: Multistakeholder Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are increasingly being introduced into various domains of health care. Little is known so far about the impact of such systems on the health care professional-patient relationship, and there is a lack of agreement about whether and how patients should be informed about the use of CDSSs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore, in an empirically informed manner, the potential implications for the health care professional-patient relationship and to underline the importance of this relationship when using CDSSs for both patients and future professionals.

METHODS

Using a methodological triangulation, 15 medical students and 12 trainee nurses were interviewed in semistructured interviews and 18 patients were involved in focus groups between April 2021 and April 2022. All participants came from Germany. Three examples of CDSSs covering different areas of health care (ie, surgery, nephrology, and intensive home care) were used as stimuli in the study to identify similarities and differences regarding the use of CDSSs in different fields of application. The interview and focus group transcripts were analyzed using a structured qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

From the interviews and focus groups analyzed, three topics were identified that interdependently address the interactions between patients and health care professionals: (1) CDSSs and their impact on the roles of and requirements for health care professionals, (2) CDSSs and their impact on the relationship between health care professionals and patients (including communication requirements for shared decision-making), and (3) stakeholders' expectations for patient education and information about CDSSs and their use.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that using CDSSs could restructure established power and decision-making relationships between (future) health care professionals and patients. In addition, respondents expected that the use of CDSSs would involve more communication, so they anticipated an increased time commitment. The results shed new light on the existing discourse by demonstrating that the anticipated impact of CDSSs on the health care professional-patient relationship appears to stem less from the function of a CDSS and more from its integration in the relationship. Therefore, the anticipated effects on the relationship between health care professionals and patients could be specifically addressed in patient information about the use of CDSSs.

AI in Radiology: Navigating Medical Responsibility

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) facilitates medical activities by automating routine tasks for healthcare professionals. AI augments but does not replace human decision-making, thus complicating the process of addressing legal responsibility. This study investigates the legal challenges associated with the medical use of AI in radiology, analyzing relevant case law and literature, with a specific focus on professional liability attribution. In the case of an error, the primary responsibility remains with the physician, with possible shared liability with developers according to the framework of medical device liability. If there is disagreement with the AI's findings, the physician must not only pursue but also justify their choices according to prevailing professional standards. Regulations must balance the autonomy of AI systems with the need for responsible clinical practice. Effective use of AI-generated evaluations requires knowledge of data dynamics and metrics like sensitivity and specificity, even without a clear understanding of the underlying algorithms: the opacity (referred to as the "black box phenomenon") of certain systems raises concerns about the interpretation and actual usability of results for both physicians and patients. AI is redefining healthcare, underscoring the imperative for robust liability frameworks, meticulous updates of systems, and transparent patient communication regarding AI involvement.

Scoping Review Shows the Dynamics and Complexities Inherent to the Notion of "Responsibility" in Artificial Intelligence within the Healthcare Context

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare presents a host of ethical, legal, social, and political challenges involving various stakeholders. These challenges prompt various studies proposing frameworks and guidelines to tackle these issues, emphasizing distinct phases of AI development, deployment, and oversight. As a result, the notion of responsible AI has become widespread, incorporating ethical principles such as transparency, fairness, responsibility, and privacy. This paper explores the existing literature on AI use in healthcare to examine how it addresses, defines, and discusses the concept of responsibility. We conducted a scoping review of literature related to AI responsibility in healthcare, searching databases and reference lists between January 2017 and January 2022 for terms related to "responsibility" and "AI in healthcare", and their derivatives. Following screening, 136 articles were included. Data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) the variety of terminology used to describe and address responsibility; (2) principles and concepts associated with responsibility; (3) stakeholders' responsibilities in AI clinical development, use, and deployment; and (4) recommendations for addressing responsibility concerns. The results show the lack of a clear definition of AI responsibility in healthcare and highlight the importance of ensuring responsible development and implementation of AI in healthcare. Further research is necessary to clarify this notion to contribute to developing frameworks regarding the type of responsibility (ethical/moral/professional, legal, and causal) of various stakeholders involved in the AI lifecycle.

Equipping AI-decision-support-systems with emotional capabilities? Ethical perspectives

It is important to accompany the research on Emotional Artificial Intelligence with ethical oversight. Previous publications on the ethics of Emotional Artificial Intelligence emphasize the importance of subjecting every (possible) type of Emotional Artificial Intelligence to separate ethical considerations. That's why, in this contribution I will focus on a particular subset of AI systems: AI-driven Decision-Support Systems (AI-DSS), and ask whether it would be advisable from an ethical perspective to equip these AI systems with emotional capacities. I will show, on one hand, equipping AI-DSS with emotional capabilities offers great opportunities, as they open the possibility to prevent emotionally biased decisions - but that it also amplifies the ethical challenges already posed by emotionally-incapable AI-DSS. Yet, if their introduction is accompanied by a broad social discourse and prepared by suitable measures to address these challenges, I argue, nothing should fundamentally stand in the way of equipping AI-DSS with emotional capabilities.

Clearing the Fog: A Scoping Literature Review on the Ethical Issues Surrounding Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices

The use of AI in healthcare has sparked much debate among philosophers, ethicists, regulators and policymakers who raised concerns about the implications of such technologies. The presented scoping review captures the progression of the ethical and legal debate and the proposed ethical frameworks available concerning the use of AI-based medical technologies, capturing key themes across a wide range of medical contexts. The ethical dimensions are synthesised in order to produce a coherent ethical framework for AI-based medical technologies, highlighting how transparency, accountability, confidentiality, autonomy, trust and fairness are the top six recurrent ethical issues. The literature also highlighted how it is essential to increase ethical awareness through interdisciplinary research, such that researchers, AI developers and regulators have the necessary education/competence or networks and tools to ensure proper consideration of ethical matters in the conception and design of new AI technologies and their norms. Interdisciplinarity throughout research, regulation and implementation will help ensure AI-based medical devices are ethical, clinically effective and safe. Achieving these goals will facilitate successful translation of AI into healthcare systems, which currently is lagging behind other sectors, to ensure timely achievement of health benefits to patients and the public.

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.

Applied Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Review of Computer Vision Technology Application in Hospital Settings

Computer vision (CV), a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses digital videos or a sequence of images to recognize content, has been used extensively across industries in recent years. However, in the healthcare industry, its applications are limited by factors like privacy, safety, and ethical concerns. Despite this, CV has the potential to improve patient monitoring, and system efficiencies, while reducing workload. In contrast to previous reviews, we focus on the end-user applications of CV. First, we briefly review and categorize CV applications in other industries (job enhancement, surveillance and monitoring, automation, and augmented reality). We then review the developments of CV in the hospital setting, outpatient, and community settings. The recent advances in monitoring delirium, pain and sedation, patient deterioration, mechanical ventilation, mobility, patient safety, surgical applications, quantification of workload in the hospital, and monitoring for patient events outside the hospital are highlighted. To identify opportunities for future applications, we also completed journey mapping at different system levels. Lastly, we discuss the privacy, safety, and ethical considerations associated with CV and outline processes in algorithm development and testing that limit CV expansion in healthcare. This comprehensive review highlights CV applications and ideas for its expanded use in healthcare.

Trust and acceptability of data-driven clinical recommendations in everyday practice: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Increasing attention is being given to the analysis of large health datasets to derive new clinical decision support systems (CDSS). However, few data-driven CDSS are being adopted into clinical practice. Trust in these tools is believed to be fundamental for acceptance and uptake but to date little attention has been given to defining or evaluating trust in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVES

A scoping review was conducted to explore how and where acceptability and trustworthiness of data-driven CDSS have been assessed from the health professional's perspective.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar were searched in March 2022 using terms expanded from: "data-driven" AND "clinical decision support" AND "acceptability". Included studies focused on healthcare practitioner-facing data-driven CDSS, relating directly to clinical care. They included trust or a proxy as an outcome, or in the discussion. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is followed in the reporting of this review.

RESULTS

3291 papers were screened, with 85 primary research studies eligible for inclusion. Studies covered a diverse range of clinical specialisms and intended contexts, but hypothetical systems (24) outnumbered those in clinical use (18). Twenty-five studies measured trust, via a wide variety of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. A further 24 discussed themes of trust without it being explicitly evaluated, and from these, themes of transparency, explainability, and supporting evidence were identified as factors influencing healthcare practitioner trust in data-driven CDSS.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing body of research on data-driven CDSS, but few studies have explored stakeholder perceptions in depth, with limited focused research on trustworthiness. Further research on healthcare practitioner acceptance, including requirements for transparency and explainability, should inform clinical implementation.

Ethical and regulatory challenges of AI technologies in healthcare: A narrative review

Over the past decade, there has been a notable surge in AI-driven research, specifically geared toward enhancing crucial clinical processes and outcomes. The potential of AI-powered decision support systems to streamline clinical workflows, assist in diagnostics, and enable personalized treatment is increasingly evident. Nevertheless, the introduction of these cutting-edge solutions poses substantial challenges in clinical and care environments, necessitating a thorough exploration of ethical, legal, and regulatory considerations. A robust governance framework is imperative to foster the acceptance and successful implementation of AI in healthcare. This article delves deep into the critical ethical and regulatory concerns entangled with the deployment of AI systems in clinical practice. It not only provides a comprehensive overview of the role of AI technologies but also offers an insightful perspective on the ethical and regulatory challenges, making a pioneering contribution to the field. This research aims to address the current challenges in digital healthcare by presenting valuable recommendations for all stakeholders eager to advance the development and implementation of innovative AI systems.

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

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

Healthy Mistrust: Medical Black Box Algorithms, Epistemic Authority, and Preemptionism

In the ethics of algorithms, a specifically epistemological analysis is rarely undertaken in order to gain a critique (or a defense) of the handling of or trust in medical black box algorithms (BBAs). This article aims to begin to fill this research gap. Specifically, the thesis is examined according to which such algorithms are regarded as epistemic authorities (EAs) and that the results of a medical algorithm must completely replace other convictions that patients have (preemptionism). If this were true, it would be a reason to distrust medical BBAs. First, the author describes what EAs are and why BBAs can be considered EAs. Then, preemptionism will be outlined and criticized as an answer to the question of how to deal with an EA. The discussion leads to some requirements for dealing with a BBA as an EA.

AI-driven decision support systems and epistemic reliance: a qualitative study on obstetricians' and midwives' perspectives on integrating AI-driven CTG into clinical decision making

BACKGROUND

Given that AI-driven decision support systems (AI-DSS) are intended to assist in medical decision making, it is essential that clinicians are willing to incorporate AI-DSS into their practice. This study takes as a case study the use of AI-driven cardiotography (CTG), a type of AI-DSS, in the context of intrapartum care. Focusing on the perspectives of obstetricians and midwives regarding the ethical and trust-related issues of incorporating AI-driven tools in their practice, this paper explores the conditions that AI-driven CTG must fulfill for clinicians to feel justified in incorporating this assistive technology into their decision-making processes regarding interventions in labor.

METHODS

This study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted online with eight obstetricians and five midwives based in England. Participants were asked about their current decision-making processes about when to intervene in labor, how AI-driven CTG might enhance or disrupt this process, and what it would take for them to trust this kind of technology. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize thematic codes that recurred in interviews to identify the issues that mattered most to participants. Topics and themes that were repeated across interviews were identified to form the basis of the analysis and conclusions of this paper.

RESULTS

There were four major themes that emerged from our interviews with obstetricians and midwives regarding the conditions that AI-driven CTG must fulfill: (1) the importance of accurate and efficient risk assessments; (2) the capacity for personalization and individualized medicine; (3) the lack of significance regarding the type of institution that develops technology; and (4) the need for transparency in the development process.

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy, efficiency, personalization abilities, transparency, and clear evidence that it can improve outcomes are conditions that clinicians deem necessary for AI-DSS to meet in order to be considered reliable and therefore worthy of being incorporated into the decision-making process. Importantly, healthcare professionals considered themselves as the epistemic authorities in the clinical context and the bearers of responsibility for delivering appropriate care. Therefore, what mattered to them was being able to evaluate the reliability of AI-DSS on their own terms, and have confidence in implementing them in their practice.

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.

Meaningful Human Control over AI for Health? A Review

Artificial intelligence is currently changing many areas of society. Especially in health, where critical decisions are made, questions of control must be renegotiated: who is in control when an automated system makes clinically relevant decisions? Increasingly, the concept of meaningful human control (MHC) is being invoked for this purpose. However, it is unclear exactly how this concept is to be understood in health. Through a systematic review, we present the current state of the concept of MHC in health. The results show that there is not yet a robust MHC concept for health. We propose a broader understanding of MHC along three strands of action: enabling, exercising and evaluating control. Taking into account these strands of action and the established rules and processes in the different health sectors, the MHC concept needs to be further developed to avoid falling into two gaps, which we have described as theoretical and labelling gaps.

Ethical considerations on artificial intelligence in dentistry: A framework and checklist

OBJECTIVE

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the ability of machines to perform cognitive and intellectual human tasks. In dentistry, AI offers the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, improve patient outcomes and streamline workflows. The present study provides a framework and a checklist to evaluate AI applications in dentistry from this perspective.

METHODS

Lending from existing guidance documents, an initial draft of the checklist and an explanatory paper were derived and discussed among the groups members.

RESULTS

The checklist was consented to in an anonymous voting process by 29 Topic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health's members. Overall, 11 principles were identified (diversity, transparency, wellness, privacy protection, solidarity, equity, prudence, law and governance, sustainable development, accountability, and responsibility, respect of autonomy, decision-making).

CONCLUSIONS

Providers, patients, researchers, industry, and other stakeholders should consider these principles when developing, implementing, or receiving AI applications in dentistry.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

While AI has become increasingly commonplace in dentistry, there are ethical concerns around its usage, and users (providers, patients, and other stakeholders), as well as the industry should consider these when developing, implementing, or receiving AI applications based on comprehensive framework to address the associated ethical challenges.

Diagnosing Systemic Disorders with AI Algorithms Based on Ocular Images

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI), especially the state-of-the-art deep learning frameworks, has begun a silent revolution in all medical subfields, including ophthalmology. Due to their specific microvascular and neural structures, the eyes are anatomically associated with the rest of the body. Hence, ocular image-based AI technology may be a useful alternative or additional screening strategy for systemic diseases, especially where resources are scarce. This review summarizes the current applications of AI related to the prediction of systemic diseases from multimodal ocular images, including cardiovascular diseases, dementia, chronic kidney diseases, and anemia. Finally, we also discuss the current predicaments and future directions of these applications.

Hammer or Measuring Tape? Artificial Intelligence and Justice in Healthcare

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful tool for several healthcare tasks. AI tools are suited to optimize predictive models in medicine. Ethical debates about AI's extension of the predictive power of medical models suggest a need to adapt core principles of medical ethics. This article demonstrates that a popular interpretation of the principle of justice in healthcare needs amendment given the effect of AI on decision-making. The procedural approach to justice, exemplified with Norman Daniels and James Sabin's accountability for reasonableness conception, needs amendment because, as research into algorithmic fairness shows, it is insufficiently sensitive to differential effects of seemingly just principles on different groups of people. The same line of research generates methods to quantify differential effects and make them amenable for correction. Thus, what is needed to improve the principle of justice is a combination of procedures for selecting just criteria and principles and the use of algorithmic tools to measure the real impact these criteria and principles have. In this article, the author shows that algorithmic tools do not merely raise issues of justice but can also be used in their mitigation by informing us about the real effects certain distributional principles and criteria would create.

Human-Centered Design to Address Biases in Artificial Intelligence

The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to reduce health care disparities and inequities is recognized, but it can also exacerbate these issues if not implemented in an equitable manner. This perspective identifies potential biases in each stage of the AI life cycle, including data collection, annotation, machine learning model development, evaluation, deployment, operationalization, monitoring, and feedback integration. To mitigate these biases, we suggest involving a diverse group of stakeholders, using human-centered AI principles. Human-centered AI can help ensure that AI systems are designed and used in a way that benefits patients and society, which can reduce health disparities and inequities. By recognizing and addressing biases at each stage of the AI life cycle, AI can achieve its potential in health care.

Deep learning: A primer for dentists and dental researchers

OBJECTIVES

Despite deep learning's wide adoption in dental artificial intelligence (AI) research, researchers from other dental fields and, more so, dental professionals may find it challenging to understand and interpret deep learning studies, their employed methods, and outcomes. The objective of this primer is to explain the basic concept of deep learning. It will lay out the commonly used terms, and describe different deep learning approaches, their methods, and outcomes.

METHODS

Our research is based on the latest review studies, medical primers, as well as the state-of-the-art research on AI and deep learning, which have been gathered in the current study.

RESULTS

In this study, a basic understanding of deep learning models and various approaches to deep learning is presented. An overview of data management strategies for deep learning projects is presented, including data collection, data curation, data annotation, and data preprocessing. Additionally, we provided a step-by-step guide for completing a real-world project.

CONCLUSION

Researchers and clinicians can benefit from this study by gaining insight into deep learning. It can be used to critically appraise existing work or plan new deep learning projects.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study may be useful to dental researchers and professionals who are assessing and appraising deep learning studies within the field of dentistry.

Practical, epistemic and normative implications of algorithmic bias in healthcare artificial intelligence: a qualitative study of multidisciplinary expert perspectives

BACKGROUND

There is a growing concern about artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare that can disadvantage already under-represented and marginalised groups (eg, based on gender or race).

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives are to canvas the range of strategies stakeholders endorse in attempting to mitigate algorithmic bias, and to consider the ethical question of responsibility for algorithmic bias.

METHODOLOGY

The study involves in-depth, semistructured interviews with healthcare workers, screening programme managers, consumer health representatives, regulators, data scientists and developers.

RESULTS

Findings reveal considerable divergent views on three key issues. First, views on whether bias is a problem in healthcare AI varied, with most participants agreeing bias is a problem (which we call the bias-critical view), a small number believing the opposite (the bias-denial view), and some arguing that the benefits of AI outweigh any harms or wrongs arising from the bias problem (the bias-apologist view). Second, there was a disagreement on the strategies to mitigate bias, and who is responsible for such strategies. Finally, there were divergent views on whether to include or exclude sociocultural identifiers (eg, race, ethnicity or gender-diverse identities) in the development of AI as a way to mitigate bias.

CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the views of participants, we set out responses that stakeholders might pursue, including greater interdisciplinary collaboration, tailored stakeholder engagement activities, empirical studies to understand algorithmic bias and strategies to modify dominant approaches in AI development such as the use of participatory methods, and increased diversity and inclusion in research teams and research participant recruitment and selection.

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.

When performance is not enough-A multidisciplinary view on clinical decision support

Scientific publications about the application of machine learning models in healthcare often focus on improving performance metrics. However, beyond often short-lived improvements, many additional aspects need to be taken into consideration to make sustainable progress. What does it take to implement a clinical decision support system, what makes it usable for the domain experts, and what brings it eventually into practical usage? So far, there has been little research to answer these questions. This work presents a multidisciplinary view of machine learning in medical decision support systems and covers information technology, medical, as well as ethical aspects. The target audience is computer scientists, who plan to do research in a clinical context. The paper starts from a relatively straightforward risk prediction system in the subspecialty nephrology that was evaluated on historic patient data both intrinsically and based on a reader study with medical doctors. Although the results were quite promising, the focus of this article is not on the model itself or potential performance improvements. Instead, we want to let other researchers participate in the lessons we have learned and the insights we have gained when implementing and evaluating our system in a clinical setting within a highly interdisciplinary pilot project in the cooperation of computer scientists, medical doctors, ethicists, and legal experts.

"Nothing works without the doctor:" Physicians' perception of clinical decision-making and artificial intelligence

Introduction

Artificial intelligence-driven decision support systems (AI-DSS) have the potential to help physicians analyze data and facilitate the search for a correct diagnosis or suitable intervention. The potential of such systems is often emphasized. However, implementation in clinical practice deserves continuous attention. This article aims to shed light on the needs and challenges arising from the use of AI-DSS from physicians' perspectives.

Methods

The basis for this study is a qualitative content analysis of expert interviews with experienced nephrologists after testing an AI-DSS in a straightforward usage scenario.

Results

The results provide insights on the basics of clinical decision-making, expected challenges when using AI-DSS as well as a reflection on the test run.

Discussion

While we can confirm the somewhat expectable demand for better explainability and control, other insights highlight the need to uphold classical strengths of the medical profession when using AI-DSS as well as the importance of broadening the view of AI-related challenges to the clinical environment, especially during treatment. Our results stress the necessity for adjusting AI-DSS to shared decision-making. We conclude that explainability must be context-specific while fostering meaningful interaction with the systems available.

Watson, autonomy and value flexibility: revisiting the debate

Many ethical concerns have been voiced about Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). Special attention has been paid to the effect of CDSSs on autonomy, responsibility, fairness and transparency. This journal has featured a discussion between Rosalind McDougall and Ezio Di Nucci that focused on the impact of IBM's Watson for Oncology (Watson) on autonomy. The present article elaborates on this discussion in three ways. First, using Jonathan Pugh's account of rational autonomy we show that how Watson presents its results might impact decisional autonomy, while how Watson produces knowledge might affect practical autonomy. Second, by drawing an analogy with patient decision aids we identify an empirical way of estimating Watson's impact on autonomy (ie, value-congruence). Lastly, McDougall introduced the notion of value-flexible design as a way to account for the diverging preferences patients hold. We will clarify its relation with the established domain of value-sensitive design. In terms of the tripartite methodology of value-sensitive design, we offer a conceptual clarification using Pugh's account of rational autonomy, an empirical tool to evaluate Watson's impact on autonomy and situate a group of technical options to incorporate autonomy in Watson's design.

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.

Evaluation of a clinical decision support system for detection of patients at risk after kidney transplantation

Patient care after kidney transplantation requires integration of complex information to make informed decisions on risk constellations. Many machine learning models have been developed for detecting patient outcomes in the past years. However, performance metrics alone do not determine practical utility. We present a newly developed clinical decision support system (CDSS) for detection of patients at risk for rejection and death-censored graft failure. The CDSS is based on clinical routine data including 1,516 kidney transplant recipients and more than 100,000 data points. In a reader study we compare the performance of physicians at a nephrology department with and without the CDSS. Internal validation shows AUC-ROC scores of 0.83 for rejection, and 0.95 for graft failure. The reader study shows that predictions by physicians converge toward the CDSS. However, performance does not improve (AUC-ROC; 0.6413 vs. 0.6314 for rejection; 0.8072 vs. 0.7778 for graft failure). Finally, the study shows that the CDSS detects partially different patients at risk compared to physicians. This indicates that the combination of both, medical professionals and a CDSS might help detect more patients at risk for graft failure. However, the question of how to integrate such a system efficiently into clinical practice remains open.

The ethics of AI-assisted warfighter enhancement research and experimentation: Historical perspectives and ethical challenges

The military applications of AI raise myriad ethical challenges. Critical among them is how AI integrates with human decision making to enhance cognitive performance on the battlefield. AI applications range from augmented reality devices to assist learning and improve training to implantable Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) to create bionic "super soldiers." As these technologies mature, AI-wired warfighters face potential affronts to cognitive liberty, psychological and physiological health risks and obstacles to integrating into military and civil society during their service and upon discharge. Before coming online and operational, however, AI-assisted technologies and neural interfaces require extensive research and human experimentation. Each endeavor raises additional ethical concerns that have been historically ignored thereby leaving military and medical scientists without a cogent ethics protocol for sustainable research. In this way, this paper is a "prequel" to the current debate over enhancement which largely considers neuro-technologies once they are already out the door and operational. To lay the ethics foundation for AI-assisted warfighter enhancement research, we present an historical overview of its technological development followed by a presentation of salient ethics research issues (ICRC, 2006). We begin with a historical survey of AI neuro-enhancement research highlighting the ethics lacunae of its development. We demonstrate the unique ethical problems posed by the convergence of several technologies in the military research setting. Then we address these deficiencies by emphasizing how AI-assisted warfighter enhancement research must pay particular attention to military necessity, and the medical and military cost-benefit tradeoffs of emerging technologies, all attending to the unique status of warfighters as experimental subjects. Finally, our focus is the enhancement of friendly or compatriot warfighters and not, as others have focused, enhancements intended to pacify enemy warfighters.

Deep Learning Assisted Diagnosis of Onychomycosis on Whole-Slide Images

Background: Onychomycosis numbers among the most common fungal infections in humans affecting finger- or toenails. Histology remains a frequently applied screening technique to diagnose onychomycosis. Screening slides for fungal elements can be time-consuming for pathologists, and sensitivity in cases with low amounts of fungi remains a concern. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have revolutionized image classification in recent years. The goal of our project was to evaluate if a U-NET-based segmentation approach as a subcategory of CNNs can be applied to detect fungal elements on digitized histologic sections of human nail specimens and to compare it with the performance of 11 board-certified dermatopathologists. Methods: In total, 664 corresponding H&E- and PAS-stained histologic whole-slide images (WSIs) of human nail plates from four different laboratories were digitized. Histologic structures were manually annotated. A U-NET image segmentation model was trained for binary segmentation on the dataset generated by annotated slides. Results: The U-NET algorithm detected 90.5% of WSIs with fungi, demonstrating a comparable sensitivity with that of the 11 board-certified dermatopathologists (sensitivity of 89.2%). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that machine-learning-based algorithms applied to real-world clinical cases can produce comparable sensitivities to human pathologists. Our established U-NET may be used as a supportive diagnostic tool to preselect possible slides with fungal elements. Slides where fungal elements are indicated by our U-NET should be reevaluated by the pathologist to confirm or refute the diagnosis of onychomycosis.

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Shared Decision Making: Scoping Review

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in various fields of medicine. It has the potential to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). However, there is no comprehensive mapping of how AI may be used for SDM.

Objective

We aimed to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI to facilitate SDM.

Methods

We performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework proposed by Levac et al, modifications to the original Arksey and O'Malley framework of a scoping review, and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. We reported our results based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases from their inception to May 2021. The inclusion criteria were: all populations; all AI interventions that were used to facilitate SDM, and if the AI intervention was not used for the decision-making point in SDM, it was excluded; any outcome related to patients, health care providers, or health care systems; studies in any health care setting, only studies published in the English language, and all study types. Overall, 2 reviewers independently performed the study selection process and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis was performed.

Results

The search process yielded 1445 records. After removing duplicates, 894 documents were screened, and 6 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 2 of them were conducted in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Asia. Most articles were published after 2017. Overall, 3 articles focused on primary care, and 3 articles focused on secondary care. All studies used machine learning methods. Moreover, 3 articles included health care providers in the validation stage of the AI intervention, and 1 article included both health care providers and patients in clinical validation, but none of the articles included health care providers or patients in the design and development of the AI intervention. All used AI to support SDM by providing clinical recommendations or predictions.

Conclusions

Evidence of the use of AI in SDM is in its infancy. We found AI supporting SDM in similar ways across the included articles. We observed a lack of emphasis on patients’ values and preferences, as well as poor reporting of AI interventions, resulting in a lack of clarity about different aspects. Little effort was made to address the topics of explainability of AI interventions and to include end-users in the design and development of the interventions. Further efforts are required to strengthen and standardize the use of AI in different steps of SDM and to evaluate its impact on various decisions, populations, and settings.

Ethical Implications of e-Health Applications in Early Preventive Healthcare

As a means of preventive medicine early detection and prevention examinations can identify and treat possible health disorders or abnormalities from an early age onwards. However, pediatric examinations are often widely spaced, and thus only snapshots of the children’s and adolescents’ developments are obtained. With e-health applications parents and adolescents could record developmental parameters much more frequently and regularly and transmit data directly for ongoing evaluation. AI technologies could be used to search for new and previously unknown patterns. Although e-health applications could improve preventive healthcare, there are serious concerns about the unlimited use of big data in medicine. Such concerns range from general skepticism about big data in medicine to specific challenges and risks in certain medical areas. In this paper, we will focus on preventive health care in pediatrics and explore ethical implications of e-health applications. Specifically, we will address opportunities and risks of app-based data collection and AI-based data evaluation for complementing established early detection and prevention examinations. To this end, we will explore the principle of the best interest of the child. Furthermore, we shall argue that difficult trade-offs need to be made between group benefit on the one hand and individual autonomy and privacy on the other.

Algorithms for Ethical Decision-Making in the Clinic: A Proof of Concept

Machine intelligence already helps medical staff with a number of tasks. Ethical decision-making, however, has not been handed over to computers. In this proof-of-concept study, we show how an algorithm based on Beauchamp and Childress' prima-facie principles could be employed to advise on a range of moral dilemma situations that occur in medical institutions. We explain why we chose fuzzy cognitive maps to set up the advisory system and how we utilized machine learning to train it. We report on the difficult task of operationalizing the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and patient autonomy, and describe how we selected suitable input parameters that we extracted from a training dataset of clinical cases. The first performance results are promising, but an algorithmic approach to ethics also comes with several weaknesses and limitations. Should one really entrust the sensitive domain of clinical ethics to machine intelligence?

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Symptom Checker Apps in Primary Health Care (CHECK.APP): Protocol for an Interdisciplinary Mixed Methods Study

Background

Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are accessible tools that provide early symptom assessment for users. The ethical, legal, and social implications of SCAs and their impact on the patient-physician relationship, the health care providers, and the health care system have sparsely been examined. This study protocol describes an approach to investigate the possible impacts and implications of SCAs on different levels of health care provision. It considers the perspectives of the users, nonusers, general practitioners (GPs), and health care experts.

Objective

We aim to assess a comprehensive overview of the use of SCAs and address problematic issues, if any. The primary outcomes of this study are empirically informed multi-perspective recommendations for different stakeholders on the ethical, legal, and social implications of SCAs.

Methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used in several overlapping and interconnected study phases. In study phase 1, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted to assess the ethical, legal, social, and systemic impacts of SCAs. Study phase 2 comprises a survey that will be analyzed with a logistic regression. It aims to assess the user degree of SCAs in Germany as well as the predictors for SCA usage. Study phase 3 will investigate self-observational diaries and user interviews, which will be analyzed as integrated cases to assess user perspectives, usage pattern, and arising problems. Study phase 4 will comprise GP interviews to assess their experiences, perspectives, self-image, and concepts and will be analyzed with the basic procedure by Kruse. Moreover, interviews with health care experts will be conducted in study phase 3 and will be analyzed by using the reflexive thematical analysis approach of Braun and Clark.

Results

Study phase 1 will be completed in November 2021. We expect the results of study phase 2 in December 2021 and February 2022. In study phase 3, interviews are currently being conducted. The final study endpoint will be in February 2023.

Conclusions

The possible ethical, legal, social, and systemic impacts of a widespread use of SCAs that affect stakeholders and stakeholder groups on different levels of health care will be identified. The proposed methodological approach provides a multifaceted and diverse empirical basis for a broad discussion on these implications.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00022465; https://tinyurl.com/yx53er67

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/34026

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.

“I’m afraid I can’t let you do that, Doctor”: meaningful disagreements with AI in medical contexts

This paper explores the role and resolution of disagreements between physicians and their diagnostic AI-based decision support systems (DSS). With an ever-growing number of applications for these independently operating diagnostic tools, it becomes less and less clear what a physician ought to do in case their diagnosis is in faultless conflict with the results of the DSS. The consequences of such uncertainty can ultimately lead to effects detrimental to the intended purpose of such machines, e.g. by shifting the burden of proof towards a physician. Thus, we require normative clarity for integrating these machines without affecting established, trusted, and relied upon workflows. In reconstructing different causes of conflicts between physicians and their AI-based tools—inspired by the approach of “meaningful human control” over autonomous systems and the challenges to resolve them—we will delineate normative conditions for “meaningful disagreements”. These incorporate the potential of DSS to take on more tasks and outline how the moral responsibility of a physician can be preserved in an increasingly automated clinical work environment.

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.

Diffused responsibility: attributions of responsibility in the use of AI-driven clinical decision support systems

Good decision-making is a complex endeavor, and particularly so in a health context. The possibilities for day-to-day clinical practice opened up by AI-driven clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS) give rise to fundamental questions around responsibility. In causal, moral and legal terms the application of AI-CDSS is challenging existing attributions of responsibility. In this context, responsibility gaps are often identified as main problem. Mapping out the changing dynamics and levels of attributing responsibility, we argue in this article that the application of AI-CDSS causes diffusions of responsibility with respect to a causal, moral, and legal dimension. Responsibility diffusion describes the situation where multiple options and several agents can be considered for attributing responsibility. Using the example of an AI-driven ‘digital tumor board’, we illustrate how clinical decision-making is changed and diffusions of responsibility take place. Not denying or attempting to bridge responsibility gaps, we argue that dynamics and ambivalences are inherent in responsibility, which is based on normative considerations such as avoiding experiences of disregard and vulnerability of human life, which are inherently accompanied by a moment of uncertainty, and is characterized by revision openness. Against this background and to avoid responsibility gaps, the article concludes with suggestions for managing responsibility diffusions in clinical decision-making with AI-CDSS.

Trustworthy Augmented Intelligence in Health Care

Augmented Intelligence (AI) systems have the power to transform health care and bring us closer to the quadruple aim: enhancing patient experience, improving population health, reducing costs, and improving the work life of health care providers. Earning physicians' trust is critical for accelerating adoption of AI into patient care. As technology evolves, the medical community will need to develop standards for these innovative technologies and re-visit current regulatory systems that physicians and patients rely on to ensure that health care AI is responsible, evidence-based, free from bias, and designed and deployed to promote equity. To develop actionable guidance for trustworthy AI in health care, the AMA reviewed literature on the challenges health care AI poses and reflected on existing guidance as a starting point for addressing those challenges (including models for regulating the introduction of innovative technologies into clinical care).

A Case Study of the Adaptive Learning Platform in a Taiwanese Elementary School: Precision Education from Teachers' Perspectives

This is a case study on precision education (PE) in a school using the Taiwan adaptive learning platform (TALP), established by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. TALP can be viewed as a form of PE because it can identify students' learning deficits, offer various learning materials, and provide feedback. There are limited studies on PE. The ways in which TALP enhances teaching and learning is meaningful for educational technologies, and to help improve TALP and applications of PE. Three fifth-grade classes in a Taiwanese elementary school were selected to participate in this study, comprising a total of 76 students and two teachers. Pre/post tests and regular tests were conducted. The quantitative data were analyzed with nonparametric statistics by using the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Median Test, which did not show significant differences. However, based on the qualitative data, teachers confirmed PE could help them identify students' learning deficits. Further, this study suggests that TALP and PE may enhance students' learning to identify students' learning challenges and offer feedback. Future research should focus on a longitudinal methodology and additional PE application studies; furthermore, research should also collect students' observations and interviews.

Integrating artificial intelligence in pathology: a qualitative interview study of users' experiences and expectations

Recent progress in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked enthusiasm for its potential use in pathology. As pathology labs are currently starting to shift their focus towards AI implementation, a better understanding how AI tools can be optimally aligned with the medical and social context of pathology daily practice is urgently needed. Strikingly, studies often fail to mention the ways in which AI tools should be integrated in the decision-making processes of pathologists, nor do they address how this can be achieved in an ethically sound way. Moreover, the perspectives of pathologists and other professionals within pathology concerning the integration of AI within pathology remains an underreported topic. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature and presents the first in-depth interview study in which professionals' perspectives on the possibilities, conditions and prerequisites of AI integration in pathology are explicated. The results of this study have led to the formulation of three concrete recommendations to support AI integration, namely: (1) foster a pragmatic attitude toward AI development, (2) provide task-sensitive information and training to health care professionals working in pathology departments and (3) take time to reflect upon users' changing roles and responsibilities.

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.

[Use of medical archives for research and patient care]

In recent years, technology in healthcare has experienced a dynamic increase, with the collection of data being a central component. In particular, artificial intelligence (AI), such as machine learning and deep learning, makes it possible to perform comprehensive analyses of large amounts of data and to draw conclusions based on correlations and pattern recognition. This paper describes the benefits and challenges of big data in patient care.

[Artificial intelligence-supported treatment in rheumatology : Principles, current situation and perspectives]

Computer-guided clinical decision support systems have been finding their way into practice for some time, mostly integrated into electronic medical records. The primary goals are to improve the quality of treatment, save time and avoid errors. These are mostly rule-based algorithms that recognize drug interactions or provide reminder functions. Through artificial intelligence (AI), clinical decision support systems can be disruptively further developed. New knowledge is constantly being created from data through machine learning in order to predict the individual course of a patient's disease, identify phenotypes or support treatment decisions. Such algorithms already exist for rheumatological diseases. Automated image recognition and disease prediction in rheumatoid arthritis are the most advanced; however, these have not yet been sufficiently tested or integrated into existing decision support systems. Rather than dictating the AI-assisted choice of treatment to the doctor, future clinical decision systems are seen as hybrid decision support, always involving both the expert and the patient. There is also a great need for security through comprehensible and auditable algorithms to sustainably guarantee the quality and transparency of AI-assisted treatment recommendations in the long term.