Search

Abstract Background Our case report provides the first clinical evaluation of autopsy practices for a patient death that occurs on the cloud. We question how autopsy practices may require adaptation for a death that presents via the ‘Internet of Things’, examining how existing guidelines capture data related to death which is no longer confined to the patient's body. Case presentation The patient was a British man in his 50s, who came to the attention of the medical team via an alert on the cloud-based platform that monitored his implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The patient had a background of congenital heart disease, with previous ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest, for which the ICD had been implanted two years earlier. Retrospective analysis of the cloud data demonstrated a gradually decreasing nocturnal heart rate over the previous three months, falling to a final transmission of 24 beats per minute (bpm). In the patient post-mortem the ICD was treated as medical waste, structural tissue changes precluded the effective evaluation of device hardware, potential issues related to device software were not investigated and the cause of death was assigned to underlying heart failure. The documentation from the attending law enforcement officials did not consider possible digital causes of harm and relevant technology was not collected from the scene of death. Conclusion Through this patient case we explore novel challenges associated with digital deaths including; (1) device hardware issues (difficult extraction processes, impact of pathological tissue changes), (2) software and data limitations (impact of negative body temperatures and mortuary radio-imaging on devices, lack of retrospective cloud data analysis), (3) guideline limitations (missing digital components in autopsy instruction and death certification), and (4) changes to clinical management (emotional impact of communicating deaths occurring over the internet to members of family). We consider the implications of our findings for public health services, the security and intelligence community, and patients and their families. In sharing this report we seek to raise awareness of digital medical cases, to draw attention to how the nature of dying is changing through technology, and to motivate the development of digitally appropriate clinical practice.

BackgroundThe presence of bias in artificial intelligence has garnered increased attention, with inequities in algorithmic performance being exposed across the fields of criminal justice, education, and welfare services. In health care, the inequitable performance of algorithms across demographic groups may widen health inequalities. ObjectiveHere, we identify and characterize bias in cardiology algorithms, looking specifically at algorithms used in the management of heart failure. MethodsStage 1 involved a literature search of PubMed and Web of Science for key terms relating to cardiac machine learning (ML) algorithms. Papers that built ML models to predict cardiac disease were evaluated for their focus on demographic bias in model performance, and open-source data sets were retained for our investigation. Two open-source data sets were identified: (1) the University of California Irvine Heart Failure data set and (2) the University of California Irvine Coronary Artery Disease data set. We reproduced existing algorithms that have been reported for these data sets, tested them for sex biases in algorithm performance, and assessed a range of remediation techniques for their efficacy in reducing inequities. Particular attention was paid to the false negative rate (FNR), due to the clinical significance of underdiagnosis and missed opportunities for treatment. ResultsIn stage 1, our literature search returned 127 papers, with 60 meeting the criteria for a full review and only 3 papers highlighting sex differences in algorithm performance. In the papers that reported sex, there was a consistent underrepresentation of female patients in the data sets. No papers investigated racial or ethnic differences. In stage 2, we reproduced algorithms reported in the literature, achieving mean accuracies of 84.24% (SD 3.51%) for data set 1 and 85.72% (SD 1.75%) for data set 2 (random forest models). For data set 1, the FNR was significantly higher for female patients in 13 out of 16 experiments, meeting the threshold of statistical significance (–17.81% to –3.37%; P

BackgroundHealth care professionals receive little training on the digital technologies that their patients rely on. Consequently, practitioners may face significant barriers when providing care to patients experiencing digitally mediated harms (eg, medical device failures and cybersecurity exploits). Here, we explore the impact of technological failures in clinical terms. ObjectiveOur study explored the key challenges faced by frontline health care workers during digital events, identified gaps in clinical training and guidance, and proposes a set of recommendations for improving digital clinical practice. MethodsA qualitative study involving a 1-day workshop of 52 participants, internationally attended, with multistakeholder participation. Participants engaged in table-top exercises and group discussions focused on medical scenarios complicated by technology (eg, malfunctioning ventilators and malicious hacks on health care apps). Extensive notes from 5 scribes were retrospectively analyzed and a thematic analysis was performed to extract and synthesize data. ResultsClinicians reported novel forms of harm related to technology (eg, geofencing in domestic violence and errors related to interconnected fetal monitoring systems) and barriers impeding adverse event reporting (eg, time constraints and postmortem device disposal). Challenges to providing effective patient care included a lack of clinical suspicion of device failures, unfamiliarity with equipment, and an absence of digitally tailored clinical protocols. Participants agreed that cyberattacks should be classified as major incidents, with the repurposing of existing crisis resources. Treatment of patients was determined by the role technology played in clinical management, such that those reliant on potentially compromised laboratory or radiological facilities were prioritized. ConclusionsHere, we have framed digital events through a clinical lens, described in terms of their end-point impact on the patient. In doing so, we have developed a series of recommendations for ensuring responses to digital events are tailored to clinical needs and center patient care.

Background The advance of digital health technologies has created new forms of potential pathology which are not captured in current clinical guidelines. Through simulation-based research, we have identified the challenges to clinical care that emerge when patients suffer from illnesses stemming from failures in digital health technologies. Methods Clinical simulation sessions were designed based on patient case reports relating to (a) medical device hardware errors, (b) medical device software errors, (c) complications of consumer technology and (d) technology-facilitated abuse. Clinicians were recruited to participate in simulations at three UK hospitals; audiovisual suites were used to facilitate group observation of simulation experience and focused debrief discussions. Invigilators scored clinicians on performance, clinicians provided individual qualitative and quantitative feedback, and extensive notes were taken throughout. Findings Paired t-tests of pre and post-simulation feedback demonstrated significant improvements in clinician's diagnostic awareness, technical knowledge and confidence in clinical management following simulation exposure (p

Abstract Background Biotechnological syndromes refer to the illnesses that arise at the intersection of human physiology and digital technology. Now that we experience health and illness through so much technology (e.g. wearables, telemedicine, implanted devices), the medium is redefining our expression of symptoms, the observable signs of pathology and the range of diseases that may occur. Here, we systematically review all case reports describing illnesses related to digital technology in the past ten years, in order to identify novel biotechnological syndromes, map out new causal pathways of disease, and identify gaps in care that have disadvantaged a community of patients suffering from these digital complaints. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for case reports and case series that described patient cases involving biotechnological syndromes from 01/01/2012 to 01/02/2022. For inclusion the technology had to play a causative role in the disease process and had to be digital (as opposed to simple electronic). Results Our search returned 7742 articles, 1373 duplicates were removed, 671 met the criteria for full review and 372 were included in the results. Results were categorised by specialty, demonstrating that syndromes were most common in Cardiology (n = 162), Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (n = 36), and Emergency and Trauma (n = 26). Discussion The 372 unique patient cases demonstrated a range of severity from mild (e.g., injuries related to Pokemon Go) to moderate (e.g. pacemaker-generated rib fractures) and severe (e.g. ventilator software bugs causing cardiac arrest). Syndromes resulted from both consumer technology (e.g. gaming addictions) and medical technologies (e.g. errors in spinal stimulators). Cases occurred at both the individual level (e.g. faulty insulin pumps) and at the population level (e.g. harm from healthcare cyberattacks). Limitations This was a retrospective systematic review of heterogeneous reports, written in English, which may only reflect a small proportion of true prevalence rates in the population.

Abstract Equity is widely held to be fundamental to the ethics of healthcare. In the context of clinical decision-making, it rests on the comparative fidelity of the intelligence – evidence-based or intuitive – guiding the management of each individual patient. Though brought to recent attention by the individuating power of contemporary machine learning, such epistemic equity arises in the context of any decision guidance, whether traditional or innovative. Yet no general framework for its quantification, let alone assurance, currently exists. Here we formulate epistemic equity in terms of model fidelity evaluated over learnt multidimensional representations of identity crafted to maximise the captured diversity of the population, introducing a comprehensive framework for Representational Ethical Model Calibration. We demonstrate the use of the framework on large-scale multimodal data from UK Biobank to derive diverse representations of the population, quantify model performance, and institute responsive remediation. We offer our approach as a principled solution to quantifying and assuring epistemic equity in healthcare, with applications across the research, clinical, and regulatory domains.

Safeguarding vulnerable patients is a key responsibility of healthcare professionals. Yet, existing clinical and patient management protocols are outdated as they do not address the emerging threats of technology-facilitated abuse. The latter describes the misuse of digital systems such as smartphones or other Internet-connected devices to monitor, control and intimidate individuals. The lack of attention given to how technology-facilitated abuse may affect patients in their lives, can result in clinicians failing to protect vulnerable patients and may affect their care in several unexpected ways. We attempt to address this gap by evaluating the literature that is available to healthcare practitioners working with patients impacted by digitally enabled forms of harm. A literature search was carried out between September 2021 and January 2022, in which three academic databases were probed using strings of relevant search terms, returning a total of 59 articles for full text review. The articles were appraised according to three criteria: (a) the focus on technology-facilitated abuse; (b) the relevance to clinical settings; and (c) the role of healthcare practitioners in safeguarding. Of the 59 articles, 17 articles met at least one criterion and only one article met all three criteria. We drew additional information from the grey literature to identify areas for improvement in medical settings and at-risk patient groups. Technology-facilitated abuse concerns healthcare professionals from the point of consultation to the point of discharge, as a result clinicians need to be equipped with the tools to identify and address these harms at any stage of the patient's journey. In this article, we offer recommendations for further research within different medical subspecialities and highlight areas requiring policy development in clinical environments.

Objectives The Indian Liver Patient Dataset (ILPD) is used extensively to create algorithms that predict liver disease. Given the existing research describing demographic inequities in liver disease diagnosis and management, these algorithms require scrutiny for potential biases. We address this overlooked issue by investigating ILPD models for sex bias.Methods Following our literature review of ILPD papers, the models reported in existing studies are recreated and then interrogated for bias. We define four experiments, training on sex-unbalanced/balanced data, with and without feature selection. We build random forests (RFs), support vector machines (SVMs), Gaussian Naïve Bayes and logistic regression (LR) classifiers, running experiments 100 times, reporting average results with SD.Results We reproduce published models achieving accuracies of >70% (LR 71.31% (2.37 SD) – SVM 79.40% (2.50 SD)) and demonstrate a previously unobserved performance disparity. Across all classifiers females suffer from a higher false negative rate (FNR). Presently, RF and LR classifiers are reported as the most effective models, yet in our experiments they demonstrate the greatest FNR disparity (RF; −21.02%; LR; −24.07%).Discussion We demonstrate a sex disparity that exists in published ILPD classifiers. In practice, the higher FNR for females would manifest as increased rates of missed diagnosis for female patients and a consequent lack of appropriate care. Our study demonstrates that evaluating biases in the initial stages of machine learning can provide insights into inequalities in current clinical practice, reveal pathophysiological differences between the male and females, and can mitigate the digitisation of inequalities into algorithmic systems.Conclusion Our findings are important to medical data scientists, clinicians and policy-makers involved in the implementation medical artificial intelligence systems. An awareness of the potential biases of these systems is essential in preventing the digital exacerbation of healthcare inequalities.

BackgroundThe rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the healthcare field has occurred with little communication between computer scientists and doctors. The impact of AI on health outcomes and inequalities calls for health professionals and data scientists to make a collaborative effort to ensure historic health disparities are not encoded into the future. We present a study that evaluates bias in existing Natural Language Processing (NLP) models used in psychiatry and discuss how these biases may widen health inequalities. Our approach systematically evaluates each stage of model development to explore how biases arise from a clinical, data science and linguistic perspective.Design/methodsA literature review of the uses of NLP in mental health was carried out across multiple disciplinary databases with defined Mesh terms and keywords. Our primary analysis evaluated biases within 'GloVe' and 'Word2Vec' word embeddings. Euclidean distances were measured to assess relationships between psychiatric terms and demographic labels, and vector similarity functions were used to solve analogy questions relating to mental health.ResultsOur primary analysis of mental health terminology in GloVe and Word2Vec embeddings demonstrated significant biases with respect to religion, race, gender, nationality, sexuality and age. Our literature review returned 52 papers, of which none addressed all the areas of possible bias that we identify in model development. In addition, only one article existed on more than one research database, demonstrating the isolation of research within disciplinary silos and inhibiting cross-disciplinary collaboration or communication.ConclusionOur findings are relevant to professionals who wish to minimize the health inequalities that may arise as a result of AI and data-driven algorithms. We offer primary research identifying biases within these technologies and provide recommendations for avoiding these harms in the future.