Digitalisation of health and the use of health data in artificial intelligence, and machine learning (ML), including for applications that will then in turn be used in healthcare are major themes permeating current UK and other countries’ healthcare systems and policies. Obtaining rich and representative data is key for robust ML development, and UK health data sets are particularly attractive sources for this. However, ensuring that such research and development is in the public interest, produces public benefit and preserves privacy (...) are key challenges. Trusted research environments (TREs) are positioned as a way of balancing the diverging interests in healthcare data research with privacy and public benefit. Using TRE data to train ML models presents various challenges to the balance previously struck between these societal interests, which have hitherto not been discussed in the literature. These challenges include the possibility of personal data being disclosed in ML models, the dynamic nature of ML models and how public benefit may be (re)conceived in this context. For ML research to be facilitated using UK health data, TREs and others involved in the UK health data policy ecosystem need to be aware of these issues and work to address them in order to continue to ensure a ‘safe’ health and care data environment that truly serves the public. (shrink)

Healthcare systems are grappling with critical challenges, including chronic diseases in aging populations, unprecedented health care staffing shortages and turnover, scarce resources, unprecedented demands and wait times, escalating healthcare expenditure, and declining health outcomes. As a result, policymakers and healthcare executives are investing in artificial intelligence (AI) solutions to increase operational efficiency, lower health care costs, and improve patient care. However, current level of investment in developing healthcare AI among members of the global digital health partnership does not seem to (...) yield a high return yet. This is mainly due to underinvestment in the supporting infrastructure necessary to enable the successful implementation of AI. If a healthcare-specific AI winter is to be avoided, it is paramount that this disparity in the level of investment in the development of AI itself and in the development of the necessary supporting system components is evened out. (shrink)

Much has been written about the need for trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI), but the underlying meaning of trust and trustworthiness can vary or be used in confusing ways. It is not always clear whether individuals are speaking of a technology’s trustworthiness, a developer’s trustworthiness, or simply of gaining the trust of users by any means. In sociotechnical circles, trustworthiness is often used as a proxy for ‘the good’, illustrating the moral heights to which technologies and developers ought to aspire, at (...) times with a multitude of diverse requirements; or at other times, no specification at all. In philosophical circles, there is doubt that the concept of trust should be applied at all to technologies rather than their human creators. Nevertheless, people continue to intuitively reason about trust in technologies in their everyday language. This qualitative study employed an empirical ethics methodology to address how developers and users define and construct requirements for trust throughout development and use, through a series of interviews. We found that different accounts of trust (rational, affective, credentialist, norms based, relational) served as the basis for individual granting of trust in technologies and operators. Ultimately, the most significant requirement for user trust and assessment of trustworthiness was the accountability of AI developers for the outputs of AI systems, hinging on the identification of accountable moral agents and perceived value alignment between the user and developer’s interests. (shrink)

BackgroundAs the use of AI becomes more pervasive, and computerised systems are used in clinical decision-making, the role of trust in, and the trustworthiness of, AI tools will need to be addressed. Using the case of computational phenotyping to support the diagnosis of rare disease in dysmorphology, this paper explores under what conditions we could place trust in medical AI tools, which employ machine learning.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with stakeholders who design and/or work with computational phenotyping systems. The method of constant (...) comparison was used to analyse the interview data.ResultsInterviewees emphasized the importance of establishing trust in the use of CP technology in identifying rare diseases. Trust was formulated in two interrelated ways in these data. First, interviewees talked about the importance of using CP tools within the context of a trust relationship; arguing that patients will need to trust clinicians who use AI tools and that clinicians will need to trust AI developers, if they are to adopt this technology. Second, they described a need to establish trust in the technology itself, or in the knowledge it provides—epistemic trust. Interviewees suggested CP tools used for the diagnosis of rare diseases might be perceived as more trustworthy if the user is able to vouchsafe for the technology’s reliability and accuracy and the person using/developing them is trusted.ConclusionThis study suggests we need to take deliberate and meticulous steps to design reliable or confidence-worthy AI systems for use in healthcare. In addition, we need to devise reliable or confidence-worthy processes that would give rise to reliable systems; these could take the form of RCTs and/or systems of accountability transparency and responsibility that would signify the epistemic trustworthiness of these tools. words 294. (shrink)

In the years to come, artificial intelligence will become an indispensable tool in medical practice. The digital transformation will undoubtedly affect today’s medical students. This study focuses on trust from the perspective of three groups of medical students - students from Croatia, students from Slovakia, and international students studying in Slovakia. A paper-pen survey was conducted using a non-probabilistic convenience sample. In the second half of 2022, 1715 students were surveyed at five faculties in Croatia and three in Slovakia. Specifically, (...) 38.2% of students indicated familiarity with the concept of AI, while 44.8% believed they would use AI in the future. Patient readiness for the implementation of technologies was mostly assessed as being low. More than half of the students, 59.1%, believe that the implementation of digital technology (AI) will negatively impact the patient-physician relationship and 51,3% of students believe that patients will trust physicians less. The least agreement with the statement was observed among international students, while a higher agreement was expressed by Slovak and Croatian students 40.9% of Croatian students believe that users do not trust the healthcare system, 56.9% of Slovak students agree with this view, while only 17.3% of international students share this opinion. The ability to explain to patients how AI works if they were asked was statistically significantly different for the different student groups, international students expressed the lowest agreement, while the Slovak and Croatian students showed a higher agreement. This study provides insight into medical students’ attitudes from Croatia, Slovakia, and international students regarding the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the future healthcare system, with a particular emphasis on the concept of trust. A notable difference was observed between the three groups of students, with international students differing from their Croatian and Slovak colleagues. This study also highlights the importance of integrating AI topics into the medical curriculum, taking into account national social & cultural specificities that could negatively impact AI implementation if not carefully addressed. (shrink)

It is widely acknowledged that trust plays an important role for the acceptability of data sharing practices in research and healthcare, and for the adoption of new health technologies such as AI. Yet there is reported distrust in this domain. Although in the UK, the NHS is one of the most trusted public institutions, public trust does not appear to accompany its data sharing practices for research and innovation, specifically with the private sector, that have been introduced in recent years. (...) In this paper, we examine the question of, what is it about sharing NHS data for research and innovation with for-profit companies that challenges public trust? To address this question, we draw from political theory to provide an account of public trust that helps better understand the relationship between the public and the NHS within a democratic context, as well as, the kind of obligations and expectations that govern this relationship. Then we examine whether the way in which the NHS is managing patient data and its collaboration with the private sector fit under this trust-based relationship. We argue that the datafication of healthcare and the broader ‘health and wealth’ agenda adopted by consecutive UK governments represent a major shift in the institutional character of the NHS, which brings into question the meaning of public good the NHS is expected to provide, challenging public trust. We conclude by suggesting that to address the problem of public trust, a theoretical and empirical examination of the benefits but also the costs associated with this shift needs to take place, as well as an open conversation at public level to determine what values should be promoted by a public institution like the NHS. (shrink)

Bioethics has developed approaches to address ethical issues in health care, similar to how technology ethics provides guidelines for ethical research on artificial intelligence, big data, and robotic applications. As these digital technologies are increasingly used in medicine, health care and public health, thus, it is plausible that the approaches of technology ethics have influenced bioethical research. Similar to the “empirical turn” in bioethics, which led to intense debates about appropriate moral theories, ethical frameworks and meta-ethics due to the increased (...) use of empirical methodologies from social sciences, the proliferation of health-related subtypes of technology ethics might have a comparable impact on current bioethical research. This systematic journal review analyses the reporting of ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods in argument-based research articles on digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health that have been published in high-impact bioethics journals. We focus on articles reporting non-empirical research in original contributions. Our aim is to describe currently used methods for the ethical analysis of ethical issues regarding the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health. We confine our analysis to non-empirical methods because empirical methods have been well-researched elsewhere. Finally, we discuss our findings against the background of established methods for health technology assessment, the lack of a typology for non-empirical methods as well as conceptual and methodical change in bioethics. Our descriptive results may serve as a starting point for reflecting on whether current ethical frameworks and non-empirical methods are appropriate to research ethical issues deriving from the application of digital technologies in medicine, health care and public health. (shrink)

Many recent AI policies have been structured under labels that follow a particular trend: national or international guidelines, policies or regulations, such as the EU’s and USA’s ‘Trustworthy AI’ and China’s and India’s adoption of ‘Responsible AI’, use a label that follows the recipe of [agentially loaded notion + ‘AI’]. A result of this branding, even if implicit, is to encourage the application by laypeople of these agentially loaded notions to the AI technologies themselves. Yet, these notions are appropriate only (...) when applied to agents, which current AI technologies are not; and the concern is that this misapplication creates an incentive to inappropriately attribute trustworthiness or responsibility to AI technologies. We endeavour to show that we have good reason to avoid any general AI policy that uses agentially loaded labelling. We suggest labelling these policies not in terms of some qualification of AI, but rather in terms of our approach to the technology and its wider development and use context – focusing on being trustworthy and responsible about AI, rather than on trustworthy or responsible AI. (shrink)