Cargando…

Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support for liver transplant evaluation and considerations about fairness: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strauss, Alexandra T., Sidoti, Carolyn N., Sung, Hannah C., Jain, Vedant S., Lehmann, Harold, Purnell, Tanjala S., Jackson, John W., Malinsky, Daniel, Hamilton, James P., Garonzik-Wang, Jacqueline, Gray, Stephen H., Levan, Macey L., Hinson, Jeremiah S., Gurses, Ayse P., Gurakar, Ahmet, Segev, Dorry L., Levin, Scott
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10497243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37695082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000239
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decision support (CDS). However, AI-CDS for transplant applications must consider important concerns regarding fairness (ie, health equity). The objective of this study was to use human-centered design methods to elicit providers’ perceptions of AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions. METHODS: In this multicenter qualitative study conducted from December 2020 to July 2021, we performed semistructured interviews with 53 multidisciplinary liver transplant providers from 2 transplant centers. We used inductive coding and constant comparison analysis of interview data. RESULTS: Analysis yielded 6 themes important for the design of fair AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions: (1) transparency in the creators behind the AI-CDS and their motivations; (2) understanding how the AI-CDS uses data to support recommendations (ie, interpretability); (3) acknowledgment that AI-CDS could mitigate emotions and biases; (4) AI-CDS as a member of the transplant team, not a replacement; (5) identifying patient resource needs; and (6) including the patient’s role in the AI-CDS. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, providers interviewed were cautiously optimistic about the potential for AI-CDS to improve clinical and equitable outcomes for patients. These findings can guide multidisciplinary developers in the design and implementation of AI-CDS that deliberately considers health equity.