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. (shrink)

Volume 24, Issue 10, October 2024, Page 76-79.

Volume 24, Issue 10, October 2024, Page 98-100.

Volume 24, Issue 10, October 2024, Page 70-72.

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. (shrink)

McCradden and colleagues' argues that machine learning in health care poses new challenges to appropriate evaluation for safe use in clinical care. It also claims that “the longstanding syst...

The application of machine learning in health care holds great promise for improving care. Indeed, our own team is collaborating with experts in machine learning and statistical modeling to bu...

McCradden and colleagues' (2022) argues that machine learning in health care poses new challenges to appropriate evaluation for safe use in clinical care. It also claims that “the longstanding syst...

In their article “A Research Ethics Framework for the Clinical Translation of Healthcare Machine Learning,” McCradden et al. highlight the various gaps that emerge when artificial intelligen...

Artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered tremendous attention in health care, and many hope that AI can enhance our health system’s ability to care for people with chronic and degenerative conditions, including Parkinson’s Disease (PD). This paper reports the themes and lessons derived from a qualitative study with people living with PD, family caregivers, and health care providers regarding the ethical dimensions of using AI to monitor, assess, and predict PD symptoms and progression. Thematic analysis identified ethical concerns at four intersecting (...) levels: personal, interpersonal, professional/institutional, and societal levels. Reflecting on potential benefits of predictive algorithms that can continuously collect and process longitudinal data, participants expressed a desire for more timely, ongoing, and accurate information that could enhance management of day-to-day fluctuations and facilitate clinical and personal care as their disease progresses. Nonetheless, they voiced concerns about intersecting ethical questions around evolving illness identities, familial and professional care relationships, privacy, and data ownership/governance. The multi-layer analysis provides a helpful way to understand the ethics of using AI in monitoring and managing PD and other chronic/degenerative conditions. (shrink)

McCradden et al.’s article makes a distinctive contribution to the growing literature on the ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine. Not only do the authors raise important ethical is...

McCradden et al. propose to close the “AI chasm” between algorithms and clinically meaningful application using the norms of evidence-based medicine and clinical research, with the rat...

The research ethics framework put forward by McCradden et al. to support systematic inquiry in the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies in healt...

The ethical review of research using methods of artificial intelligence and machine learning in health care contexts has become an important challenge for Research Ethics Boards (also refer...

Machine learning heralds highly transformative approaches to the automation of numerous clinical tasks, from diagnosis to risk assessment, and from prognosis to informing treatment decisions....

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. (shrink)

The ethics of artificial intelligence and machine learning exemplify the conceptual struggle between applying familiar pathways of ethical analysis versus generating novel strategies. Mel...

The authors offer their sincere thanks to all of the commentators for taking the time to comment on our work ; one of the advantages of the AJOB format is immediate feedback,...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. Artificial intelligence can be both a blessing and a curse, and potentially a double-edged sword if not carefully wielded. While it holds massive potential benefits to humans—particularly in healthcare by assisting in treatment of diseases, surgeries, record keeping, and easing the lives of both patients and doctors, its misuse has potential for harm through impact of biases, unemployment, breaches of (...) privacy, and lack of accountability to mention a few. In this article, we discuss the fourth industrial revolution, through a focus on the core of this phenomenon, artificial intelligence. We outline what the fourth industrial revolution is, its basis around AI, and how this infiltrates human lives and society, akin to a transcendence. We focus on the potential dangers of AI and the ethical concerns it brings about particularly in developing countries in general and conflict zones in particular, and we offer potential solutions to such dangers. While we acknowledge the importance and potential of AI, we also call for cautious reservations before plunging straight into the exciting world of the future, one which we long have heard of only in science fiction movies. (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)