Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Jan 26, 2022
Date Accepted: Jul 14, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Oversight of artificial intelligence in medicine: A review of frameworks
ABSTRACT
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding in medicine even while lacking formal oversight.
Objective:
We sought to identify and describe considerations for the oversight of AI in medicine. We also explored where along the translational process (i.e., AI development, reporting, evaluation, implementation, and surveillance) these considerations were targeted.
Methods:
We conducted a targeted review of frameworks for the oversight of AI in medicine. The search included key topics such as ‘artificial intelligence,’ ‘machine learning’, ‘guidance as topic’, ‘translational science’, ‘medical device legislation’, and ‘evaluation study,’ and spanned the time period 2014-2021. Frameworks were included if they described translational considerations for AI. The included frameworks were summarized descriptively. Content analysis was used to identify considerations for the oversight of AI in medicine. An evaluation matrix methodology was used to map each consideration across the different translational stages for each framework.
Results:
Six frameworks were featured in the review and included peer reviewed and white papers from consortium and professional organizations. Content analysis of the frameworks revealed five overarching considerations related to the oversight of AI in medicine, including: transparency, reproducibility, ethics, effectiveness, and engagement. All frameworks included discussions regarding transparency, reproducibility, ethics, and effectiveness, while only half of frameworks discussed engagement. The evaluation matrix revealed that frameworks were most likely to report AI considerations for the translational stage of development, and least likely to report considerations for the translational stage of surveillance.
Conclusions:
Frameworks provided broad guidance for the oversight of AI in medicine, but notably offered less input on the role engagement approaches for oversight, and regarding the translational stage of surveillance. Identifying and optimizing strategies for engagement is essential to ensure that AI can meaningfully benefit patients and other end-users.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.