The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The use of artificial intelligence applications in medicine and the standard required for healthcare provider-patient briefings—an exploratory study
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are currently being funneled through legacy regulatory processes that are not adapted to the unique particularities of this new technology class. In the absence of adequate regulation of DHTs, the briefing of a patient by their healthcare provider (HCP) as a component of informed consent can present the last line of defense before potentially harmful technologies are employed on a patient. Methods: This exploratory study utilizes a case vignette of a machine learning-based technology for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease that is presented to a group of medical students, physicians, and bioethicists. What constitutes the necessary standard and content of the HCP–patient briefings is explored using a survey ( N = 34). Whether participants actually provide a sufficient HCP–patient briefing is evaluated based on audio recordings. Results and Conclusions: We find that participants deem artificial intelligence use in medical context should be declared to patients and argue that the explanation should currently follow the standard required of other experimental procedures. Further, since our study provides indications that implementation of HCP–patient briefings lacks behind the identified standard, opportunities for incorporation of training on the use of DHTs into medical curricula and continuous training schedules should be considered.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although the value of empirical research on patients’ views regarding information disclosure in the use of AI/ML in medicine has been recognized, 12 no research has yet explored what information patients consider important or significant for making treatment decisions when AI is used in a clinical setting.26–28”
From Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: A web-based experiment (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423
Doctor-patient communication: a review.
Ha, J. F., & Longnecker, N. E. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 1,020
Evaluation and accurate diagnoses of pediatric diseases using artificial intelligence
Liang, H., Tsui, B., Ni, H., Valentim, C. C. S., Baxter, S. L., Liu, G., Cai, W., Kermany, D., Sun, X., Chen, J., et al. (2019) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0335-9 · Cited by 682
Patient apprehensions about the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare
Richardson, J. P., Smith, C., Curtis, S., Watson, S., Zhu, X., Barry, B., & Sharp, R. R. (2021) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00509-1 · Cited by 424
Spatz, E. S., Krumholz, H. M., & Moulton, B. W. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.3070 · Cited by 236 · cited 1×
“What constitutes information necessary for the patient to make the decision? Over time and with a shift from a paternalistic to a more patient-centered approach, the reasonable patient standard has taken a dominant position across jurisdictions, that is, considering what an average patient would need to know as oppose…”
BackgroundKennedy, T. J. T., Regehr, G., Rosenfield, J. D., Roberts, S. W., & Lingard, L. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200405000-00006 · Cited by 147
A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent in personal genome testing
Bunnik, E. M., Janssens, A. C. J. W., & Schermer, M. (2012) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.237 · Cited by 126
Astromskė, K., Peičius, E., & Astromskis, P. (2020) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01008-9 · Cited by 98
Artificial intelligence in medicine and the disclosure of risks
Kiener, M. (2021) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01085-w · Cited by 97
The regulatory gap in digital health and alternative pathways to bridge it
Iqbal, J. D., & Biller‐Andorno, N. (2022) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100663 · Cited by 67
Self-citationUrsin, F., Timmermann, C., Orzechowski, M., & Steger, F. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.695217 · Cited by 32
Burt, J., Abel, G., Elmore, N., Newbould, J., Davey, A. F., Llanwarne, N. R., Maramba, I. D. C., Paddison, C. A. M., BENSON, J. A., Silverman, J., et al. (2016) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558716671217 · Cited by 28
Are we ready for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine?
Iqbal, J. D., & Vinay, R. (2022) · Swiss Medical Weekly · doi:10.4414/smw.2022.w30179 · Cited by 22
Self-citationScantlebury, A., Sheard, L., Fedell, C., & Wright, J. (2021) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076211010033 · Cited by 13
Medical-ethical recommendations: preimplantation genetic testing PGT
(2020) · Swiss Medical Weekly · doi:10.4414/smw.2020.20298 · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Cohen IG, 2020, Georgetown Law J, 108, 1425
- Ha JF, 2010, Ochsner J, 10, 38
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: A web-based experiment
Park, H. J. (2024) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076241247938 · Cited by 95
AI-Enhanced Healthcare: Not a new Paradigm for Informed Consent
Pruski, M. (2024) · Journal of Bioethical Inquiry · doi:10.1007/s11673-023-10320-0 · Cited by 45
Bečulić, H., Begagić, E., Skomorac, R., Mašović, A., Selimović, E., & Pojskić, M. (2023) · Medicinski Glasnik · doi:10.17392/1661-23 · Cited by 37
Huang, A. A., & Huang, S. Y. (2023) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.1635 · Cited by 23
Integrative Medicine in Diagnostics: Current Advances and Future Prospects
Youn, B.-Y. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13193052 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Iqbal, J. D., & Christen, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Iqbal, Jeffrey David
- Venue
- DIGITAL HEALTH
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 205520762211474
- ISSN
- 2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9806394
- OpenAlex
- W4313055579
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 0.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in healthcare, digital health technologies, informed consent, patient-provider communication, ischemic heart disease diagnosis, machine learning, regulatory standards, medical education, physician training, bioethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
