Algorithms advise, humans decide: the evidential role of the patient preference predictor.

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110175
Nicholas Makins
{"title":"Algorithms advise, humans decide: the evidential role of the patient preference predictor.","authors":"Nicholas Makins","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An AI-based 'patient preference predictor' (PPP) is a proposed method for guiding healthcare decisions for patients who lack decision-making capacity. The proposal is to use correlations between sociodemographic data and known healthcare preferences to construct a model that predicts the unknown preferences of a particular patient. In this paper, I highlight a distinction that has been largely overlooked so far in debates about the PPP-that between algorithmic prediction and decision-making-and argue that much of the recent philosophical disagreement stems from this oversight. I show how three prominent objections to the PPP only challenge its use as the sole determinant of a choice, and actually support its use as a source of evidence about patient preferences to inform human decision-making. The upshot is that we should adopt the evidential conception of the PPP and shift our evaluation of this technology towards the ethics of algorithmic prediction, rather than decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110175","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An AI-based 'patient preference predictor' (PPP) is a proposed method for guiding healthcare decisions for patients who lack decision-making capacity. The proposal is to use correlations between sociodemographic data and known healthcare preferences to construct a model that predicts the unknown preferences of a particular patient. In this paper, I highlight a distinction that has been largely overlooked so far in debates about the PPP-that between algorithmic prediction and decision-making-and argue that much of the recent philosophical disagreement stems from this oversight. I show how three prominent objections to the PPP only challenge its use as the sole determinant of a choice, and actually support its use as a source of evidence about patient preferences to inform human decision-making. The upshot is that we should adopt the evidential conception of the PPP and shift our evaluation of this technology towards the ethics of algorithmic prediction, rather than decision-making.

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
算法建议,人类决定:患者偏好预测器的证据作用。
基于人工智能的 "患者偏好预测器"(PPP)是一种为缺乏决策能力的患者提供医疗决策指导的建议方法。该方法建议利用社会人口学数据与已知医疗偏好之间的相关性来构建一个模型,预测特定患者的未知偏好。在本文中,我强调了迄今为止在有关购买力平价的辩论中基本上被忽视的一个区别,即算法预测与决策之间的区别,并认为最近的哲学分歧大多源于这一疏忽。我说明了对购买力平价的三个主要反对意见是如何质疑将其用作选择的唯一决定因素的,而实际上支持将其用作有关患者偏好的证据来源,为人类决策提供信息。其结果是,我们应该采用 PPP 的证据概念,并将我们对这项技术的评估转向算法预测伦理,而不是决策伦理。
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
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Argument for allowing first-in-human cardiac xenotransplantation clinical trials in paediatric patients. Advancing the scholarship of clinical ethics consultation. Autonomy versus exclusion in xenotransplantation trials. Distributive justice, best options and organ markets: a reply to Semrau. The ethics of synthetic DNA.
×
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