Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records

Health Informatics; Ethics; Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Science

Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records

Health Informatics; Ethics; Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery; Statistics for Life Sciences, Medicine, Health Science

Secondary analysis of electronic health records

This book trains the next generation of scientists representing different disciplines to leverage the data generated during routine patient care. It formulates a more complete lexicon of evidence-based recommendations and support shared, ethical decision making by doctors with their patients. Diagnostic and therapeutic technologies continue to evolve rapidly, and both individual practitioners and clinical teams face increasingly complex ethical decisions. Unfortunately, the current state of medical knowledge does not provide the guidance to make the majority of clinical decisions on the basis of evidence. The present research infrastructure is inefficient and frequently produces unreliable results that cannot be replicated. Even randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the traditional gold standards of the research reliability hierarchy, are not without limitations. They can be costly, labor intensive, and slow, and can return results that are seldom generalizable to every patient population. Furthermore, many pertinent but unresolved clinical and medical systems issues do not seem to have attracted the interest of the research enterprise, which has come to focus instead on cellular and molecular investigations and single-agent (e.g., a drug or device) effects. For clinicians, the end result is a bit of a “data desert” when it comes to making decisions. The new research infrastructure proposed in this book will help the medical profession to make ethically sound and well informed decisions for their patients

Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities-A global review.

BackgroundWhile artificial intelligence (AI) offers possibilities of advanced clinical prediction and decision-making in healthcare, models trained on relatively homogeneous datasets, and populations poorly-representative of underlying diversity, limits generalisability and risks biased AI-based decisions. Here, we describe the landscape of AI in clinical medicine to delineate population and data-source disparities.MethodsWe performed a scoping review of clinical papers published in PubMed in 2019 using AI techniques. We assessed differences in dataset country source, clinical specialty, and author nationality, sex, and expertise. A manually tagged subsample of PubMed articles was used to train a model, leveraging transfer-learning techniques (building upon an existing BioBERT model) to predict eligibility for inclusion (original, human, clinical AI literature). Of all eligible articles, database country source and clinical specialty were manually labelled. A BioBERT-based model predicted first/last author expertise. Author nationality was determined using corresponding affiliated institution information using Entrez Direct. And first/last author sex was evaluated using the Gendarize.io API.ResultsOur search yielded 30,576 articles, of which 7,314 (23.9%) were eligible for further analysis. Most databases came from the US (40.8%) and China (13.7%). Radiology was the most represented clinical specialty (40.4%), followed by pathology (9.1%). Authors were primarily from either China (24.0%) or the US (18.4%). First and last authors were predominately data experts (i.e., statisticians) (59.6% and 53.9% respectively) rather than clinicians. And the majority of first/last authors were male (74.1%).InterpretationU.S. and Chinese datasets and authors were disproportionately overrepresented in clinical AI, and almost all of the top 10 databases and author nationalities were from high income countries (HICs). AI techniques were most commonly employed for image-rich specialties, and authors were predominantly male, with non-clinical backgrounds. Development of technological infrastructure in data-poor regions, and diligence in external validation and model re-calibration prior to clinical implementation in the short-term, are crucial in ensuring clinical AI is meaningful for broader populations, and to avoid perpetuating global health inequity