Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence vs. Natural Stupidity: Evaluating AI readiness for the Vietnamese Medical Information System.

ABSTRACT: This review paper presents a framework to evaluate the artificial intelligence (AI) readiness for the healthcare sector in developing countries: a combination of adequate technical or technological expertise, financial sustainability, and socio-political commitment embedded in a healthy psycho-cultural context could bring about the smooth transitioning toward an AI-powered healthcare sector. Taking the Vietnamese healthcare sector as a case study, this paper attempts to clarify the negative and positive influencers. With only about 1500 publications about AI from 1998 to 2017 according to the latest Elsevier AI report, Vietnamese physicians are still capable of applying the state-of-the-art AI techniques in their research. However, a deeper look at the funding sources suggests a lack of socio-political commitment, hence the financial sustainability, to advance the field. The AI readiness in Vietnam's healthcare also suffers from the unprepared information infrastructure-using text mining for the official annual reports from 2012 to 2016 of the Ministry of Health, the paper found that the frequency of the word "database" actually decreases from 2012 to 2016, and the word has a high probability to accompany words such as "lacking", "standardizing", "inefficient", and "inaccurate." Finally, manifestations of psycho-cultural elements such as the public's mistaken views on AI or the non-transparent, inflexible and redundant of Vietnamese organizational structures can impede the transition to an AI-powered healthcare sector.

SUBMITTER: Vuong QH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6406313 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Artificial Intelligence vs. Natural Stupidity: Evaluating AI readiness for the Vietnamese Medical Information System.

Vuong Quan-Hoang QH Ho Manh-Tung MT Vuong Thu-Trang TT La Viet-Phuong VP Ho Manh-Toan MT Nghiem Kien-Cuong P KP Tran Bach Xuan BX Giang Hai-Ha HH Giang Thu-Vu TV Latkin Carl C Nguyen Hong-Kong T HT Ho Cyrus S H CSH Ho Roger C M RCM

Journal of clinical medicine 20190201 2

This review paper presents a framework to evaluate the artificial intelligence (AI) readiness for the healthcare sector in developing countries: a combination of adequate technical or technological expertise, financial sustainability, and socio-political commitment embedded in a healthy psycho-cultural context could bring about the smooth transitioning toward an AI-powered healthcare sector. Taking the Vietnamese healthcare sector as a case study, this paper attempts to clarify the negative and ...[more]

PMID: 30717268

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is unlikely that applications of artificial intelligence (AI) will completely replace physicians. However, it is very likely that AI applications will acquire many of their roles and generate new tasks in medical care. To be ready for new roles and tasks, medical students and physicians will need to understand the fundamentals of AI and data science, mathematical concepts, and related ethical and medico-legal issues in addition with the standard medical principles. Nevertheless, there is no valid and reliable instrument available in the literature to measure medical AI readiness. In this study, we have described the development of a valid and reliable psychometric measurement tool for the assessment of the perceived readiness of medical students on AI technologies and its applications in medicine.MethodsTo define medical students' required competencies on AI, a diverse set of experts' opinions were obtained by a qualitative method and were used as a theoretical framework, while creating the item pool of the scale. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were applied.ResultsA total of 568 medical students during the EFA phase and 329 medical students during the CFA phase, enrolled in two different public universities in Turkey participated in this study. The initial 27-items finalized with a 22-items scale in a four-factor structure (cognition, ability, vision, and ethics), which explains 50.9% cumulative variance that resulted from the EFA. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was 0.87. CFA indicated appropriate fit of the four-factor model (?2/df?=?3.81, RMSEA?=?0.094, SRMR?=?0.057, CFI?=?0.938, and NNFI (TLI)?=?0.928). These values showed that the four-factor model has construct validity.ConclusionsThe newly developed Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness Scale for Medical Students (MAIRS-MS) was found to be valid and reliable tool for evaluation and monitoring of perceived readiness levels of medical students on AI technologies and applications. Medical schools may follow 'a physician training perspective that is compatible with AI in medicine' to their curricula by using MAIRS-MS. This scale could be benefitted by medical and health science education institutions as a valuable curriculum development tool with its learner needs assessment and participants' end-course perceived readiness opportunities.

Project description:BackgroundSimilar to understanding how blood pressure is measured by a sphygmomanometer, physicians will soon have to understand how an artificial intelligence-based application has come to the conclusion that a patient has hypertension, diabetes, or cancer. Although there are an increasing number of use cases where artificial intelligence is or can be applied to improve medical outcomes, the extent to which medical doctors and students are ready to work and leverage this paradigm is unclear.ObjectiveThis research aims to capture medical students' and doctors' level of familiarity toward artificial intelligence in medicine as well as their challenges, barriers, and potential risks linked to the democratization of this new paradigm.MethodsA web-based questionnaire comprising five dimensions-demographics, concepts and definitions, training and education, implementation, and risks-was systematically designed from a literature search. It was completed by 207 participants in total, of which 105 (50.7%) medical doctors and 102 (49.3%) medical students trained in all continents, with most of them in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and North America.ResultsThe results revealed no significant difference in the familiarity of artificial intelligence between medical doctors and students (P=.91), except that medical students perceived artificial intelligence in medicine to lead to higher risks for patients and the field of medicine in general (P<.001). We also identified a rather low level of familiarity with artificial intelligence (medical students=2.11/5; medical doctors=2.06/5) as well as a low attendance to education or training. Only 2.9% (3/105) of medical doctors attended a course on artificial intelligence within the previous year, compared with 9.8% (10/102) of medical students. The complexity of the field of medicine was considered one of the biggest challenges (medical doctors=3.5/5; medical students=3.8/5), whereas the reduction of physicians' skills was the most important risk (medical doctors=3.3; medical students=3.6; P=.03).ConclusionsThe question is not whether artificial intelligence will be used in medicine, but when it will become a standard practice for optimizing health care. The low level of familiarity with artificial intelligence identified in this study calls for the implementation of specific education and training in medical schools and hospitals to ensure that medical professionals can leverage this new paradigm and improve health outcomes.

Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy. Yet people are often reluctant to trust automated systems, and some patient populations may be particularly distrusting. We sought to determine how diverse patient populations feel about the use of AI diagnostic tools, and whether framing and informing the choice affects uptake. To construct and pretest our materials, we conducted structured interviews with a diverse set of actual patients. We then conducted a pre-registered (osf.io/9y26x), randomized, blinded survey experiment in factorial design. A survey firm provided n = 2675 responses, oversampling minoritized populations. Clinical vignettes were randomly manipulated in eight variables with two levels each: disease severity (leukemia versus sleep apnea), whether AI is proven more accurate than human specialists, whether the AI clinic is personalized to the patient through listening and/or tailoring, whether the AI clinic avoids racial and/or financial biases, whether the Primary Care Physician (PCP) promises to explain and incorporate the advice, and whether the PCP nudges the patient towards AI as the established, recommended, and easy choice. Our main outcome measure was selection of AI clinic or human physician specialist clinic (binary, "AI uptake"). We found that with weighting representative to the U.S. population, respondents were almost evenly split (52.9% chose human doctor and 47.1% chose AI clinic). In unweighted experimental contrasts of respondents who met pre-registered criteria for engagement, a PCP's explanation that AI has proven superior accuracy increased uptake (OR = 1.48, CI 1.24-1.77, p < .001), as did a PCP's nudge towards AI as the established choice (OR = 1.25, CI: 1.05-1.50, p = .013), as did reassurance that the AI clinic had trained counselors to listen to the patient's unique perspectives (OR = 1.27, CI: 1.07-1.52, p = .008). Disease severity (leukemia versus sleep apnea) and other manipulations did not affect AI uptake significantly. Compared to White respondents, Black respondents selected AI less often (OR = .73, CI: .55-.96, p = .023) and Native Americans selected it more often (OR: 1.37, CI: 1.01-1.87, p = .041). Older respondents were less likely to choose AI (OR: .99, CI: .987-.999, p = .03), as were those who identified as politically conservative (OR: .65, CI: .52-.81, p < .001) or viewed religion as important (OR: .64, CI: .52-.77, p < .001). For each unit increase in education, the odds are 1.10 greater for selecting an AI provider (OR: 1.10, CI: 1.03-1.18, p = .004). While many patients appear resistant to the use of AI, accuracy information, nudges and a listening patient experience may help increase acceptance. To ensure that the benefits of AI are secured in clinical practice, future research on best methods of physician incorporation and patient decision making is required.

Project description:BackgroundCavernous hemangioma and schwannoma are tumors that both occur in the orbit. Because the treatment strategies of these two tumors are different, it is necessary to distinguish them at treatment initiation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is typically used to differentiate these two tumor types; however, they present similar features in MRI images which increases the difficulty of differential diagnosis. This study aims to devise and develop an artificial intelligence framework to improve the accuracy of clinicians' diagnoses and enable more effective treatment decisions by automatically distinguishing cavernous hemangioma from schwannoma.MethodsMaterial: As the study materials, we chose MRI images as the study materials that represented patients from diverse areas in China who had been referred to our center from more than 45 different hospitals. All images were initially acquired on films, which we scanned into digital versions and recut. Finally, 11,489 images of cavernous hemangioma (from 33 different hospitals) and 3,478 images of schwannoma (from 16 different hospitals) were collected. Labeling: All images were labeled using standard anatomical knowledge and pathological diagnosis. Training: Three types of models were trained in sequence (a total of 96 models), with each model including a specific improvement. The first two model groups were eye- and tumor-positioning models designed to reduce the identification scope, while the third model group consisted of classification models trained to make the final diagnosis.ResultsFirst, internal four-fold cross-validation processes were conducted for all the models. During the validation of the first group, the 32 eye-positioning models were able to localize the position of the eyes with an average precision of 100%. In the second group, the 28 tumor-positioning models were able to reach an average precision above 90%. Subsequently, using the third group, the accuracy of all 32 tumor classification models reached nearly 90%. Next, external validation processes of 32 tumor classification models were conducted. The results showed that the accuracy of the transverse T1-weighted contrast-enhanced sequence reached 91.13%; the accuracy of the remaining models was significantly lower compared with the ground truth.ConclusionsThe findings of this retrospective study show that an artificial intelligence framework can achieve high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in automated differential diagnosis between cavernous hemangioma and schwannoma in a real-world setting, which can help doctors determine appropriate treatments.

Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence vs. Natural Stupidity: Evaluating AI readiness for the Vietnamese Medical Information System.

Publications

Artificial Intelligence vs. Natural Stupidity: Evaluating AI readiness for the Vietnamese Medical Information System.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets