Should Artificial Intelligence be used to support clinical ethical decision-making? A systematic review of reasons

被引:25
作者
Benzinger, Lasse [1 ]
Ursin, Frank [1 ]
Balke, Wolf-Tilo [2 ]
Kacprowski, Tim [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Salloch, Sabine [1 ]
机构
[1] Hannover Med Sch MHH, Inst Ethics Hist & Philosophy Med, Carl Neuberg Str 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany
[2] TU Braunschweig, Inst Informat Syst, Braunschweig, Germany
[3] Tech Univ Carolo Wilhelmina Braunschweig, Peter L Reichertz Inst Med Informat, Div Data Sci Biomed, Braunschweig, Germany
[4] Hannover Med Sch, Braunschweig, Germany
[5] TU Braunschweig, Braunschweig Integrated Ctr Syst Biol BRICS, Braunschweig, Germany
关键词
Ethics; Clinical; Decision-making; artificial intelligence; Decision support systems; clinical; Systematic review; PATIENT PREFERENCE PREDICTOR; ALGORITHMIC ETHICS; CARE; CLASSIFICATION; LANDSCAPE; ISSUES;
D O I
10.1186/s12910-023-00929-6
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Healthcare providers have to make ethically complex clinical decisions which may be a source of stress. Researchers have recently introduced Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications to assist in clinical ethical decisionmaking. However, the use of such tools is controversial. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the reasons given in the academic literature for and against their use. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Philpapers.org and Google Scholar were searched for all relevant publications. The resulting set of publications was title and abstract screened according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 44 papers whose full texts were analysed using the Kuckartz method of qualitative text analysis. Results Artificial Intelligence might increase patient autonomy by improving the accuracy of predictions and allowing patients to receive their preferred treatment. It is thought to increase beneficence by providing reliable information, thereby, supporting surrogate decision-making. Some authors fear that reducing ethical decision-making to statistical correlations may limit autonomy. Others argue that AI may not be able to replicate the process of ethical deliberation because it lacks human characteristics. Concerns have been raised about issues of justice, as AI may replicate existing biases in the decision-making process. Conclusions The prospective benefits of using AI in clinical ethical decision-making are manifold, but its development and use should be undertaken carefully to avoid ethical pitfalls. Several issues that are central to the discussion of Clinical Decision Support Systems, such as justice, explicability or human-machine interaction, have been neglected in the debate on AI for clinical ethics so far. Trial registration This review is registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/wvcs9).
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
Anderson M, 2006, P 18 C INN APPL ART, V2, P1759
[2]   The AI Needed for Ethical Decision Making Does Not Exist [J].
Barwise, Amelia ;
Pickering, Brian .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2022, 22 (07) :46-49
[3]   Principles of Biomedical Ethics: Marking Its Fortieth Anniversary [J].
Beauchamp, Tom ;
Childress, James .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2019, 19 (11) :9-12
[4]   Precision diagnosis: a view of the clinical decision support systems (CDSS) landscape through the lens of critical care [J].
Belard, Arnaud ;
Buchman, Timothy ;
Forsberg, Jonathan ;
Potter, Benjamin K. ;
Dente, Christopher J. ;
Kirk, Allan ;
Elster, Eric .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MONITORING AND COMPUTING, 2017, 31 (02) :261-271
[5]   AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: proceed with care [J].
Biller-Andorno, Nikola ;
Ferrario, Andrea ;
Joebges, Susanne ;
Krones, Tanja ;
Massini, Federico ;
Barth, Phyllis ;
Arampatzis, Georgios ;
Krauthammer, Michael .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2022, 48 (03) :175-183
[6]   Algorithm-Aided Prediction of Patient Preferences - An Ethics Sneak Peek [J].
Biller-Andorno, Nikola ;
Biller, Armin .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2019, 381 (15) :1480-1485
[7]  
Binkley Charles E, 2022, AMA J Ethics, V24, pE773, DOI 10.1001/amajethics.2022.773
[8]   Deep learning outperformed 136 of 157 dermatologists in a head-to-head dermoscopic melanoma image classification task [J].
Brinker, Titus J. ;
Hekler, Achim ;
Enk, Alexander H. ;
Klode, Joachim ;
Hauschild, Axel ;
Berking, Carola ;
Schilling, Bastian ;
Haferkamp, Sebastian ;
Schadendorf, Dirk ;
Holland-Letz, Tim ;
Utikal, Jochen S. ;
von Kalle, Christof .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2019, 113 :47-54
[9]   Reflections on the Patient Preference Predictor Proposal [J].
Brock, Dan W. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY, 2014, 39 (02) :153-160
[10]   Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis [J].
Chan, Heang-Ping ;
Samala, Ravi K. ;
Hadjiiski, Lubomir M. ;
Zhou, Chuan .
DEEP LEARNING IN MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS: CHALLENGES AND APPLICATIONS, 2020, 1213 :3-21