The "Magical Theory" of AI in Medicine: Thematic Narrative Analysis.

Autor:	Lorenzini G; Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland., Arbelaez Ossa L; Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland., Milford S; Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland., Elger BS; Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.; Unit for Health Law and Humanitarian Medicine, Center for Legal Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland., Shaw DM; Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.; Health, Ethics and Society, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands., De Clercq E; Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	JMIR AI [JMIR AI] 2024 Aug 19; Vol. 3, pp. e49795. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Aug 19.
DOI:	10.2196/49795
Abstrakt:	Background: The discourse surrounding medical artificial intelligence (AI) often focuses on narratives that either hype the technology's potential or predict dystopian futures. AI narratives have a significant influence on the direction of research, funding, and public opinion and thus shape the future of medicine. Objective: The paper aims to offer critical reflections on AI narratives, with a specific focus on medical AI, and to raise awareness as to how people working with medical AI talk about AI and discharge their "narrative responsibility." Methods: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 41 participants from different disciplines who were exposed to medical AI in their profession. The research represents a secondary analysis of data using a thematic narrative approach. The analysis resulted in 2 main themes, each with 2 other subthemes. Results: Stories about the AI-physician interaction depicted either a competitive or collaborative relationship. Some participants argued that AI might replace physicians, as it performs better than physicians. However, others believed that physicians should not be replaced and that AI should rather assist and support physicians. The idea of excessive technological deferral and automation bias was discussed, highlighting the risk of "losing" decisional power. The possibility that AI could relieve physicians from burnout and allow them to spend more time with patients was also considered. Finally, a few participants reported an extremely optimistic account of medical AI, while the majority criticized this type of story. The latter lamented the existence of a "magical theory" of medical AI, identified with techno-solutionist positions. Conclusions: Most of the participants reported a nuanced view of technology, recognizing both its benefits and challenges and avoiding polarized narratives. However, some participants did contribute to the hype surrounding medical AI, comparing it to human capabilities and depicting it as superior. Overall, the majority agreed that medical AI should assist rather than replace clinicians. The study concludes that a balanced narrative (that focuses on the technology's present capabilities and limitations) is necessary to fully realize the potential of medical AI while avoiding unrealistic expectations and hype. (©Giorgia Lorenzini, Laura Arbelaez Ossa, Stephen Milford, Bernice Simone Elger, David Martin Shaw, Eva De Clercq. Originally published in JMIR AI (https://ai.jmir.org), 19.08.2024.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu