Healthcare Transformation in Singapore With Artificial Intelligence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8521861 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Healthcare Transformation in Singapore With Artificial Intelligence.
Liu Siqi S Ko Qianwen Stephanie QS Heng Kun Qiang Amos KQA Ngiam Kee Yuan KY Feng Mengling M
Frontiers in digital health 20201117
Similar Datasets
Project description:Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and "100 years from now." (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.
| S-EPMC10635466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare has demonstrated high efficiency in academic research, while only few, and predominantly small, real-world AI applications exist in the preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic contexts. Our identification and analysis of success factors for the implementation of AI aims to close the gap between recent years' significant academic AI advancements and the comparably low level of practical application in healthcare. Methods: A literature and real life cases analysis was conducted in Scopus and OpacPlus as well as the Google advanced search database. The according search queries have been defined based on success factor categories for AI implementation derived from a prior World Health Organization survey about barriers of adoption of Big Data within 125 countries. The eligible publications and real life cases were identified through a catalog of in- and exclusion criteria focused on concrete AI application cases. These were then analyzed to deduct and discuss success factors that facilitate or inhibit a broad-scale implementation of AI in healthcare. Results: The analysis revealed three categories of success factors, namely (1) policy setting, (2) technological implementation, and (3) medical and economic impact measurement. For each of them a set of recommendations has been deducted: First, a risk adjusted policy frame is required that distinguishes between precautionary and permissionless principles, and differentiates among accountability, liability, and culpability. Second, a "privacy by design" centered technology infrastructure shall be applied that enables practical and legally compliant data access. Third, the medical and economic impact need to be quantified, e.g., through the measurement of quality-adjusted life years while applying the CHEERS and PRISMA reporting criteria. Conclusions: Private and public institutions can already today leverage AI implementation based on the identified results and thus drive the translation from scientific development to real world application. Additional success factors could include trust-building measures, data categorization guidelines, and risk level assessments and as the success factors are interlinked, future research should elaborate on their optimal interaction to utilize the full potential of AI in real world application.
| S-EPMC8521923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) systems hold great promise to improve healthcare over the next decades. Specifically, AI systems leveraging multiple data sources and input modalities are poised to become a viable method to deliver more accurate results and deployable pipelines across a wide range of applications. In this work, we propose and evaluate a unified Holistic AI in Medicine (HAIM) framework to facilitate the generation and testing of AI systems that leverage multimodal inputs. Our approach uses generalizable data pre-processing and machine learning modeling stages that can be readily adapted for research and deployment in healthcare environments. We evaluate our HAIM framework by training and characterizing 14,324 independent models based on HAIM-MIMIC-MM, a multimodal clinical database (N = 34,537 samples) containing 7279 unique hospitalizations and 6485 patients, spanning all possible input combinations of 4 data modalities (i.e., tabular, time-series, text, and images), 11 unique data sources and 12 predictive tasks. We show that this framework can consistently and robustly produce models that outperform similar single-source approaches across various healthcare demonstrations (by 6-33%), including 10 distinct chest pathology diagnoses, along with length-of-stay and 48 h mortality predictions. We also quantify the contribution of each modality and data source using Shapley values, which demonstrates the heterogeneity in data modality importance and the necessity of multimodal inputs across different healthcare-relevant tasks. The generalizable properties and flexibility of our Holistic AI in Medicine (HAIM) framework could offer a promising pathway for future multimodal predictive systems in clinical and operational healthcare settings.
| S-EPMC9489871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In healthcare, the development and deployment of insufficiently fair systems of artificial intelligence (AI) can undermine the delivery of equitable care. Assessments of AI models stratified across subpopulations have revealed inequalities in how patients are diagnosed, treated and billed. In this Perspective, we outline fairness in machine learning through the lens of healthcare, and discuss how algorithmic biases (in data acquisition, genetic variation and intra-observer labelling variability, in particular) arise in clinical workflows and the resulting healthcare disparities. We also review emerging technology for mitigating biases via disentanglement, federated learning and model explainability, and their role in the development of AI-based software as a medical device.
| S-EPMC10632090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo survey UK doctors on their uses of artificial intelligence (AI) and of their views on the ethics and regulation of AI in healthcare.DesignAnonymous cross-sectional e-survey.SettingAn online survey of UK General Medical Council (GMC) registered doctors.Participants272 individuals.Main outcome measuresLikert-scale responses to questions covering personal use of AI, concerns about AI, requirements for introduction of AI and views on necessary AI regulation in healthcare.ResultsMost doctors rated themselves as slightly or moderately knowledgeable about AI, with men rating their knowledge levels higher than women. Doctors in training are more likely to have used AI than doctors after training. 37% of doctors who use AI reported using AI to help write the required reflective pieces for their portfolio. Doctors reported concerns about AI regarding patient safety and patients' right to confidentiality. They also expressed a strong desire for further regulation of AI in healthcare and, specifically, for their professional bodies to draft guidelines for the use of AI by doctors.ConclusionsThis study provides useful insights into UK doctors' uses of AI in healthcare and their opinions on its introduction and regulation. It provides a case for guidance on the use of AI in the reflective practices of doctors and for further evaluation of doctors' concerns about AI in healthcare. We call on doctors' professional bodies (GMC, BMA and royal colleges) to draft professional guidance for doctors using AI.
| S-EPMC11667393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) is entering into daily life and has the potential to play a significant role in healthcare. Aim was to investigate the perspectives (knowledge, experience, and opinion) on AI in healthcare among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, gastroenterologists, and GI-fellows. In this prospective questionnaire study 377 GI-patients, 35 gastroenterologists, and 45 GI-fellows participated. Of GI-patients, 62.5% reported to be familiar with AI and 25.0% of GI-physicians had work-related experience with AI. GI-patients preferred their physicians to use AI (mean 3.9) and GI-physicians were willing to use AI (mean 4.4, on 5-point Likert-scale). More GI-physicians believed in an increase in quality of care (81.3%) than GI-patients (64.9%, χ2(2) = 8.2, p = 0.017). GI-fellows expected AI implementation within 6.0 years, gastroenterologists within 4.2 years (t(76) = - 2.6, p = 0.011), and GI-patients within 6.1 years (t(193) = - 2.0, p = 0.047). GI-patients and GI-physicians agreed on the most important advantages of AI in healthcare: improving quality of care, time saving, and faster diagnostics and shorter waiting times. The most important disadvantage for GI-patients was the potential loss of personal contact, for GI-physicians this was insufficiently developed IT infrastructures. GI-patients and GI-physicians hold positive perspectives towards AI in healthcare. Patients were significantly more reserved compared to GI-fellows and GI-fellows were more reserved compared to gastroenterologists.
| S-EPMC9537305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This chapter will map the ethical and legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and suggest directions for resolving them. Section 1 will briefly clarify what AI is and Section 2 will give an idea of the trends and strategies in the United States (US) and Europe, thereby tailoring the discussion to the ethical and legal debate of AI-driven healthcare. This will be followed in Section 3 by a discussion of four primary ethical challenges, namely, (1) informed consent to use, (2) safety and transparency, (3) algorithmic fairness and biases, and (4) data privacy. Section 4 will then analyze five legal challenges in the US and Europe: (1) safety and effectiveness, (2) liability, (3) data protection and privacy, (4) cybersecurity, and (5) intellectual property law. Finally, Section 5 will summarize the major conclusions and especially emphasize the importance of building an AI-driven healthcare system that is successful and promotes trust and the motto Health AIs for All of Us.
| S-EPMC7332220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe outlook of artificial intelligence for healthcare (AI4H) is promising. However, no studies have yet discussed the issues from the perspective of stakeholders in Korea. This research aimed to identify stakeholders' requirements for AI4H to accelerate the business and research of AI4H.MethodsWe identified research funding trends from the Korean National Science and Technology Knowledge Information Service (NTIS) from 2015 and 2019 using "healthcare AI" and related keywords. Furthermore, we conducted an online survey with members of the Korean Society of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine to identify experts' opinions regarding the development of AI4H. Finally, expert interviews were conducted with 13 experts in three areas (hospitals, industry, and academia).ResultsWe found 160 related projects from the NTIS. The major data type was radiology images (59.4%). Dermatology-related diseases received the most funding, followed by pulmonary diseases. Based on the survey responses, radiology images (23.9%) were the most demanding data type. Over half of the solutions were related to diagnosis (33.3%) or prognosis prediction (31%). In the expert interviews, all experts mentioned healthcare data for AI solutions as a major issue. Experts in the industrial field mainly mentioned regulations, practical efficacy evaluation, and data accessibility.ConclusionsWe identified technology, regulatory, and data issues for practical AI4H applications from the perspectives of stakeholders in hospitals, industry, and academia in Korea. We found issues and requirements, including regulations, data utilization, reimbursement, and human resource development, that should be addressed to promote further research in AI4H.
| S-EPMC9117806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While there is significant enthusiasm in the medical community about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare, few research studies have sought to assess patient perspectives on these technologies. We conducted 15 focus groups examining patient views of diverse applications of AI in healthcare. Our results indicate that patients have multiple concerns, including concerns related to the safety of AI, threats to patient choice, potential increases in healthcare costs, data-source bias, and data security. We also found that patient acceptance of AI is contingent on mitigating these possible harms. Our results highlight an array of patient concerns that may limit enthusiasm for applications of AI in healthcare. Proactively addressing these concerns is critical for the flourishing of ethical innovation and ensuring the long-term success of AI applications in healthcare.
| S-EPMC8455556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) is delivering value across all aspects of clinical practice. However, bias may exacerbate healthcare disparities. This review examines the origins of bias in healthcare AI, strategies for mitigation, and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders towards achieving fair and equitable use. We highlight the importance of systematically identifying bias and engaging relevant mitigation activities throughout the AI model lifecycle, from model conception through to deployment and longitudinal surveillance.
| S-EPMC11897215 | biostudies-literature