scholarly journals The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Health Equity in Oncology: A Scoping Review

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4934-4934
Author(s):  
Paul Istasy ◽  
Wen Shen Lee ◽  
Alla Iansavitchene ◽  
Ross Upshur ◽  
Bekim Sadikovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Resource Limited Settings ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction: The expanding use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hematology and oncology research and practice creates an urgent need to consider the potential impact of these technologies on health equity at both local and global levels. Fairness and equity are issues of growing concern in AI ethics, raising problems ranging from bias in datasets and algorithms to disparities in access to technology. The impact of AI on health equity in oncology, however, remains underexplored. We conducted a scoping review to characterize, evaluate, and identify gaps in the existing literature on AI applications in oncology and their implications for health equity in cancer care. Methodology: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to March 28, 2021 using key terms for AI, health equity, and cancer. Our search was restricted to English language abstracts with no restrictions by publication type. Two reviewers screened a total of 9519 abstracts, and 321 met inclusion criteria for full-text review. 247 were included in the final analysis after assessment by three reviewers. Studies were analysed descriptively, by location, type of cancer and AI application, as well as thematically, based on issues pertaining to health equity in oncology. Results: Of the 247 studies included in our analysis, 150 (60.7%) were based in North America, 57 (23.0%) in Asia, 29 (11.7%) in Europe, 5 (2.1%) in Central/South America, 4 (1.6%) in Oceania, and 2 (0.9%) in Africa. 71 (28.6%) were reviews and commentaries, and 176 were (71.3%) clinical studies. 25 (10.1%) focused on AI applications in screening, 42 (17.0%) in diagnostics, 46 (18.6%) in prognostication, and 7 (2.9%) in treatment. 40 (16.3%) used AI as a tool for clinical/epidemiological research and 87 (35.2%) discussed multiple applications of AI. A diverse range of cancers were represented in the studies, including hematologic malignancies. Our scoping review identified three overarching themes in the literature, which largely focused on how AI might improve health equity in oncology. These included: (1) the potential for AI reduce disparities by improving access to health services in resource-limited settings through applications such as low-cost cancer screening technologies and decision support systems; (2) the ability of AI to mitigate bias in clinical decision-making through algorithms that alert clinicians to potential sources of bias thereby allowing for more equitable and individualized care; (3) the use of AI as a research tool to identify disparities in cancer outcomes based on factors such as race, gender and socioeconomic status, and thus inform health policy. While most of the literature emphasized the positive impact of AI in oncology, there was only limited discussion of AI's potential adverse effects on health equity . Despite engaging with the use of AI in resource-limited settings, ethical issues surrounding data extraction and AI trials in low-resource settings were infrequently raised. Similarly, AI's potential to reinforce bias and widen disparities in cancer care was under-examined despite engagement with related topics of bias in clinical decision-making. Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of the literature identified by our scoping review highlights the benefits of AI applications in oncology, including its potential to improve access to care in low-resource settings, mitigate bias in clinical decision-making, and identify disparities in cancer outcomes. However, AI's potential negative impacts on health equity in oncology remain underexplored: ethical issues arising from deploying AI technologies in low-resources settings, and issues of bias in datasets and algorithms were infrequently discussed in articles dealing with related themes. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals A Review of Current Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Medical Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 316-325
Author(s):  
Jayant Kumar A Rathod ◽  
Naveen Bhavani ◽  
Prenita Prinsal Saldanha ◽  
Preethi M Rao ◽  
Prasad Patil
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Time Problem ◽  
The Impact

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning are two fields that are causing substantial development in every field specifically in the field of medical sciences; for the stupendous potential that it can provide to assist the clinicians, researchers, in clinical decision making, automate time consuming procedures, medical imaging, and more. Most implementations of AI/ML rely on static data set, and this where the big data steps in. That is, these models are developed and trained on a data set that is already recorded and have been diligently reviewed for accuracy; leading to a precise decision-making process. Experts foresee that AI/ML based overarching care system will develop high-quality patient care and innovative research, aiding advanced decision support tools. In this paper we shall realize what are the current devices that are build and are being used for real time problem solving, also discuss the impact of Software as a Medical Device (SAMD) in future of medical sciences. [2,3,11]

An evaluation of artificial intelligence-based clinical decision supports use in Brazil.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18081-e18081
Author(s):  
Hermano Alexandre Lima Rocha ◽  
Irene Dankwa-Mullan ◽  
Sergio Ferreira Juacaba ◽  
Anita Preininger ◽  
Winnie Felix ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Time Table ◽  
Positive Statements ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
Clinical Decision Supports ◽  
Personalized Cancer ◽  
The Impact

e18081 Background: The Instituto do Câncer do Ceará (ICC), a 160-bed oncology hospital located in Brazil, serves approximately 23,000 patients monthly. In December of 2017, ICC implemented Watson for Oncology (WFO), an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision-support (CDS) tool to help enhance personalized cancer care. As of December 2018, 903 cases involving mainly breast, prostate and gastric cancers were entered in WFO. The purpose of this study was to investigate how implementation of WFO and use by oncologists affects clinical decision-making and workflow. Methods: 7 oncologists who employed WfO during and after the patients’ first visit were recruited to complete a survey regarding usability, decision-making and workflow. The group consisted of 1 urologist, 3 gastric surgeons, 1 gynecologist, 1 breast surgeon, 1 head-neck surgeon. Survey questions integrated the CDS Five Rights framework. Results: Most oncologists agreed that WFO is easy to understand and provides complete, relevant and actionable information at an appropriate time (Table). Opinions on the impact on treatment decisions varied. 71.4% expressed positive statements (agree or strongly agree) pertaining to the use of WFO. Conclusions: In this study, oncologists felt WFO met 5 Rights expectations for CDS; 57% felt that WFO exceed expectations. Further research is needed to understand how variation in experience affects decision impact. [Table: see text]

AAC Assessment and Clinical-Decision Making: The Impact of Experience

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee Dietz ◽  
Wendy Quach ◽  
Shelley K. Lund ◽  
Miechelle McKelvey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Impact

Standardized Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reports — So What and Who Cares?: A Population-Based Satisfaction Survey of 970 Pathologists, Surgeons, and Oncologists

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (11) ◽  
pp. 1599-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lankshear ◽  
John Srigley ◽  
Thomas McGowan ◽  
Marta Yurcan ◽  
Carol Sawka
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cancer Pathology ◽  
Report Turnaround Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pathology Reporting ◽  
The Impact

Context.—Cancer Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time. Objective.—To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process. Design.—A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments. Results.—A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r = 0.750, P < .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r = 0.663, P < .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t169 = 3.044, P = .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion. Conclusion.—This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing a medical mobile phone app (QUiPP V2) designed to predict the risk of preterm birth and aid clinical decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Carlisle ◽  
H. A. Watson ◽  
J. Carter ◽  
K. Kuhrt ◽  
P. T. Seed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background As the vast majority of women who present in threatened preterm labour (TPTL) will not deliver early, clinicians need to balance the risks of over-medicalising the majority of women, against the potential risk of preterm delivery for those discharged home. The QUiPP app is a free, validated app which can support clinical decision-making as it produces individualised risks of delivery within relevant timeframes. Recent evidence has highlighted that clinicians would welcome a decision-support tool that accurately predicts preterm birth. Methods Qualitative interviews were undertaken as part of the EQUIPTT study (The Evaluation of the QUiPP app for Triage and Transfer) (REC: 17/LO/1802) which aimed to evaluate the impact of the QUiPP app on management of TPTL. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were used to explore clinicians’ (obstetricians’ and midwives’) experiences of using the QUiPP app and how it was implemented at their hospital sites. Thematic analysis was chosen to explore the meaning of the data, through a framework approach. Results Nineteen participants from 10 hospital sites in England took part. Data analysis revealed three overarching themes which were: ‘experience of using the app’, ‘how QUiPP risk changes practice’ and ‘successfully adopting QUiPP: context is everything’. With these final themes we appeared to have achieved our aim of exploring the clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing the QUiPP app. Conclusion This study explored different clinician’s experiences of implementing the app. The organizational and cultural context at different sites appeared to have a large impact on how well the QUiPP app was implemented. Future work needs to be undertaken to understand how best to embed the intervention within different settings. This will inform scale up of QUiPP app use across the UK and ensure that clinicians have access to this free, easy-to-use tool which can positively aid clinical decision making when caring for women in TPTL. Clinical trial registry and registration number ISRCTN 17846337, registered 08th January 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17846337.

scholarly journals Exploring the role of the Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) in clinical decision-making: a realist evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scott ◽  
Elisavet Andrikopoulou ◽  
Haythem Nakkas ◽  
Paul Roderick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Health Information Exchange ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

Background: The overall evidence for the impact of electronic information systems on cost, quality and safety of healthcare remains contested. Whilst it seems intuitively obvious that having more data about a patient will improve care, the mechanisms by which information availability is translated into better decision-making are not well understood. Furthermore, there is the risk of data overload creating a negative outcome. There are situations where a key information summary can be more useful than a rich record. The Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) is a shared electronic health record for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that combines key information from hospital, general practice, community care and social services. Its purpose is to provide clinical and care professionals with complete, accurate and up-to-date information when caring for patients. CHIE is used by GP out-of-hours services, acute hospital doctors, ambulance service, GPs and others in caring for patients. Research questions: The fundamental question was How does awareness of CHIE or usage of CHIE affect clinical decision-making? The secondary questions were What are the latent benefits of CHIE in frontline NHS operations? and What is the potential of CHIE to have an impact on major NHS cost pressures? The NHS funders decided to focus on acute medical inpatient admissions as the initial scope, given the high costs associated with hospital stays and the patient complexities (and therefore information requirements) often associated with unscheduled admissions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to explore their experience about the utility of CHIE in their clinical scenario, whether and how it has affected their decision-making practices and the barriers and facilitators for their use of CHIE. The Framework Method was used for qualitative analysis, supported by the software tool Atlas.ti. Results: 21 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three main functions were identified as useful: extensive medication prescribing history, information sharing between primary, secondary and social care and access to laboratory test results. We inferred two positive cognitive mechanisms: knowledge confidence and collaboration assurance, and three negative ones: consent anxiety, search anxiety and data mistrust. Conclusions: CHIE gives clinicians the bigger picture to understand the patient's health and social care history and circumstances so as to make confident and informed decisions. CHIE is very beneficial for medicines reconciliation on admission, especially for patients that are unable to speak or act for themselves or who cannot remember their precise medication or allergies. We found no clear evidence that CHIE has a significant impact on admission or discharge decisions. We propose the use of recommender systems to help clinicians navigate such large volumes of patient data, which will only grow as additional data is collected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document