Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1186/s12911-024-02653-6
Maryam Mooghali, Austin M Stroud, Dong Whi Yoo, Barbara A Barry, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Joseph S Ross, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E Miller
{"title":"Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review.","authors":"Maryam Mooghali, Austin M Stroud, Dong Whi Yoo, Barbara A Barry, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Joseph S Ross, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E Miller","doi":"10.1186/s12911-024-02653-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients', caregivers', or healthcare providers' perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues (n = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity (n = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm (n = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns (n = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy (n = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership (n = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients' interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9340,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11373417/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02653-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care.

Methods: In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients', caregivers', or healthcare providers' perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design.

Results: After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues (n = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity (n = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm (n = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns (n = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy (n = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership (n = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients' interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights.

Conclusion: This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
值得信赖、符合伦理道德的人工智能心血管护理:快速回顾。
背景:人工智能(AI)越来越多地被用于心血管疾病的预防、诊断、监测和治疗。尽管人工智能具有改善医疗服务的潜力,但公众和医疗界对人工智能医疗存在道德担忧和不信任。鉴于最近人工智能在心血管医疗领域的快速发展和变革,为了给实践指南和监管政策提供信息,以促进在医疗领域使用人工智能时的伦理和信任,我们进行了一次文献综述,从患者和医疗服务提供者的角度确定在心血管医疗领域使用人工智能时的主要伦理和信任障碍及促进因素:在此次快速文献综述中,我们检索了六个文献数据库,以确定从患者、护理人员或医疗服务提供者的角度讨论心血管护理中与基于人工智能的医疗设备(相关干预措施)相关的透明度、信任或伦理问题(相关结果)的出版物。检索于 2022 年 5 月 24 日完成,不受日期或研究设计的限制:结果:在查阅了六个数据库中的 7925 篇论文和通过引文追逐确定的 3603 篇论文后,共纳入 145 篇文章。主要的伦理问题包括隐私、安全或保密问题(n = 59,40.7%);医疗保健不公平或差异风险(n = 36,24.8%);患者伤害风险(n = 24,16.6%);问责和责任问题(n = 19,13.1%);知情同意问题和潜在的患者自主权丧失(n = 17,11.7%);以及与数据所有权相关的问题(n = 11,7.6%)。主要的信任障碍包括数据隐私和安全问题、潜在的患者伤害风险、认为人工智能医疗设备缺乏透明度、担心人工智能取代人工护理、担心利润优先于患者利益,以及缺乏与人工智能医疗设备的准确性和局限性相关的有力证据。促进伦理和信任的因素包括确保数据隐私和数据验证、在不同群体中开展临床试验、为患者和医疗服务提供者提供适当的培训和资源并提高他们在人工智能实施不同阶段的参与度,以及建立进一步的监管监督:本综述从患者和医疗服务提供者的角度揭示了人工智能医疗设备的关键伦理问题、信任障碍和促进因素。要将人工智能成功融入心血管护理,就必须实施缓解策略。这些策略应侧重于加强对患者数据使用的监管,并提高在患者护理中使用人工智能的透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of health information technologies and decision-making for human health.
期刊最新文献
Real-world data to support post-market safety and performance of embolization coils: evidence generation from a medical device manufacturer and data institute partnership. Development of message passing-based graph convolutional networks for classifying cancer pathology reports Machine learning-based evaluation of prognostic factors for mortality and relapse in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a comparative simulation study A cross domain access control model for medical consortium based on DBSCAN and penalty function RCC-Supporter: supporting renal cell carcinoma treatment decision-making using machine learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1