Behavioural artificial intelligence technology for COVID-19 intensivist triage decisions: making the implicit explicit.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: de Metz J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8384917 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Behavioural artificial intelligence technology for COVID-19 intensivist triage decisions: making the implicit explicit.
de Metz Jesse J Thoral Patrick J PJ Chorus Caspar G CG Elbers Paul W G PWG van den Bogaard Bas B
Intensive care medicine 20210825 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople's propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.
| S-EPMC10786932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, Medical errors are a serious problem when examining patients. Creating information systems that use the capabilities of evidence-based medicine and artificial intelligence methods will allow the doctor to make an informed and proven decision. In this article, the authors offer a description of an information system that solves the problem of supporting medical decision making based on evidence-based medicine. This is achieved by using artificial intelligence methods. This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, a unique project identifier RFMEFI60819X0278.
| S-EPMC7531984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSurgeons make complex, high-stakes decisions under time constraints and uncertainty, with significant effect on patient outcomes. This review describes the weaknesses of traditional clinical decision-support systems and proposes that artificial intelligence should be used to augment surgical decision-making.ObservationsSurgical decision-making is dominated by hypothetical-deductive reasoning, individual judgment, and heuristics. These factors can lead to bias, error, and preventable harm. Traditional predictive analytics and clinical decision-support systems are intended to augment surgical decision-making, but their clinical utility is compromised by time-consuming manual data management and suboptimal accuracy. These challenges can be overcome by automated artificial intelligence models fed by livestreaming electronic health record data with mobile device outputs. This approach would require data standardization, advances in model interpretability, careful implementation and monitoring, attention to ethical challenges involving algorithm bias and accountability for errors, and preservation of bedside assessment and human intuition in the decision-making process.Conclusions and relevanceIntegration of artificial intelligence with surgical decision-making has the potential to transform care by augmenting the decision to operate, informed consent process, identification and mitigation of modifiable risk factors, decisions regarding postoperative management, and shared decisions regarding resource use.
| S-EPMC7286802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Historically, there has been a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding cross-cultural differences in attitudes towards artificial agents and preferences for their physical appearance. Previous studies have almost exclusively assessed attitudes using self-report measures (i.e., questionnaires). In the present study, we sought to expand our knowledge on the influence of cultural background on explicit and implicit attitudes towards robots and avatars. Using the Negative Attitudes Towards Robots Scale and the Implicit Association Test in a Japanese and Dutch sample, we investigated the effect of culture and robots' body types on explicit and implicit attitudes across two experiments (total n = 669). Partly overlapping with our hypothesis, we found that Japanese individuals had a more positive explicit attitude towards robots compared to Dutch individuals, but no evidence of such a difference was found at the implicit level. As predicted, the implicit preference towards humans was moderate in both cultural groups, but in contrast to what we expected, neither culture nor robot embodiment influenced this preference. These results suggest that only at the explicit but not implicit level, cultural differences appear in attitudes towards robots.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12369-022-00917-7.
| S-EPMC10465401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Knowledge without awareness, or implicit knowledge, influences a variety of behaviors. It is unknown however, whether implicit knowledge of statistical structure informs visual perceptual decisions or whether explicit knowledge of statistical probabilities is required. Here, we measured visual decision-making performance using a novel task in which humans reported the orientation of two differently colored translational Glass patterns; each color associated with different orientation probabilities. The task design allowed us to assess participants' ability to learn and use a general orientation prior as well as a color specific feature prior. Classifying decision-makers based on a questionnaire revealed that both implicit and explicit learners implemented a general orientation bias by adjusting the starting point of evidence accumulation in the drift diffusion model framework. Explicit learners additionally adjusted the drift rate offset. When subjects implemented a stimulus specific bias, they did so by adjusting primarily the drift rate offset. We conclude that humans can learn priors implicitly for perceptual decision-making and depending on awareness implement the priors using different mechanisms.
| S-EPMC8379185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and in pathology in particular has made major progress but little is known on how much these algorithms will influence pathologists' decisions in practice. The objective of this paper is to determine the reliance of pathologists on AI and to investigate whether providing information on AI impacts this reliance.Materials and methodsThe experiment using an online survey design. Under 3 conditions, 116 pathologists and pathology students were tasked with assessing the Gleason grade for a series of 12 prostate biopsies: (1) without AI recommendations, (2) with AI recommendations, and (3) with AI recommendations accompanied by information about the algorithm itself, specifically algorithm accuracy rate and algorithm decision-making process.ResultsParticipant responses were significantly more accurate with the AI decision aids than without (92% vs 87%, odds ratio 13.30, P < .01). Unexpectedly, the provision of information on the algorithm made no significant difference compared to AI without information. The reliance on AI correlated with general beliefs on AI's usefulness but not with particular assessments of the AI tool offered. Decisions were made faster when AI was provided.DiscussionThese results suggest that pathologists are willing to rely on AI regardless of accuracy or explanations. Generalization beyond the specific tasks and explanations provided will require further studies.ConclusionThis study suggests that the factors that influence the reliance on AI differ in practice from beliefs expressed by clinicians in surveys. Implementation of AI in prospective settings should take individual behaviors into account.
| S-EPMC9471707 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6710912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The clinical prioritisation criteria (CPC) are a clinical decision support tool that ensures patients referred for public specialist outpatient services to Queensland Health are assessed according to their clinical urgency. Medical referrals are manually triaged and prioritised into three categories by the associated health service before appointments are booked. We have developed a method using artificial intelligence to automate the process of categorizing medical referrals based on clinical prioritization criteria (CPC) guidelines. Using machine learning techniques, we have created a tool that can assist clinicians in sorting through the substantial number of referrals they receive each year, leading to more efficient use of clinical specialists' time and improved access to healthcare for patients. Our research included analyzing 17,378 ENT referrals from two hospitals in Queensland between 2019 and 2022. Our results show a level of agreement between referral categories and generated predictions of 53.8%.
| S-EPMC10642163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate AI-based chat bots ability to accurately answer common patient's questions in the field of ophthalmology.MethodsAn experienced ophthalmologist curated a set of 20 representative questions and responses were sought from two AI generative models: OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Bard (Gemini Pro). Eight expert ophthalmologists from different sub-specialties assessed each response, blinded to the source, and ranked them by three metrics-accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity, on a 1-5 scale.ResultsFor accuracy, ChatGPT scored a median of 4.0, whereas Bard scored a median of 3.0. In terms of comprehensiveness, ChatGPT achieved a median score of 4.5, compared to Bard which scored a median of 3.0. Regarding clarity, ChatGPT maintained a higher score with a median of 5.0, compared to Bard's median score of 4.0. All comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001).ConclusionAI-based chat bots can provide relatively accurate and clear responses for addressing common ophthalmological inquiries. ChatGPT surpassed Bard in all measured metrics. While these AI models exhibit promise, further research is indicated to improve their performance and allow them to be used as a reliable medical tool.
| S-EPMC11885819 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11264065 | biostudies-literature