Even the most sophisticated programs, however, will likely need to be monitored by humans to put a diagnosis or treatment option in context. Today, as when AI programs such as INTERNIST and MYCIN were developed, "so-called expert systems have knowledge you might characterize as rather thin," says Patrick Winston, former president of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. "They might know what to do, but they don't have any common sense. So if by some error the program suggested a barrel of penicillin, the program wouldn't know it was illogical."
Dubious doctors
And even if it works perfectly, a diagnostic AI system still might not be a major part of technology used by physicians in a clinic or hospital. Even though computers are ubiquitous in modern hospitals, novel technologies can initially slow work flow as people learn to use them. "We have to figure out how to motivate people to say, 'Yes, it's slowing me down, but in the long run it's going to make me more efficient or provide better care,'" M.I.T.'s Szolovits says.
Even if the systems flowed seamlessly into the existing practice of medicine, many experts suspect that physicians will be reluctant to use them. "Doctors don't want to lose control," says Vimla Patel, a cognitive informatics researcher at the University of Texas School of Health Information Sciences at Houston. Instead, for these programs to gain wider use they must supplement human expertise, not replace it. For instance, Patel says, "if a doctor has been working around the clock, or is aging, you want to have information that is easily accessible, retrievable and usable" to act as a backup.
By helping doctors keep track of patients' tests, make diagnoses and determine treatments, intelligent technologies could become invaluable in making health care more efficient. Combining the strengths of doctors and smart software could provide better care than either could alone, Szolovits says. "That's arguably a much better system for health care."
Subscription Center
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentThe sooner we get something in AI for Dx the better most patients will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHippocrates, the ancient Greek father of medicine, was correct when he stated:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"LIFE is short, and Art long; the crisis fleeting; experience perilous, and decision difficult. The physician must not only be prepared to do what is right himself, but also to make the patient, the attendants, and externals cooperate. Hippocrates"
Of course, Hippocrate's profound statement implies that artificial intelligence would necessarily be an extremely important and efficacious tool for physicians given the "perilous experience and difficult decisions" inherent in medical reasoning.
The problems presented in the article are all surmountable. The problem is, it appears everyone's paying attention to the long game without looking at what low-hanging fruit can be grabbed now. For example"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Machines that performed intertwined functions—dosing and delivering medication, for example—did not communicate with one another, and patient statistics detailed on paper were not in the hospital's electronic medical records."
Mentioned elsewhere in the article, it states that many of these issues are due to differing "languages" being spoken by each machine. No problem, the first step to solving the over arching problem is to fix the communication issues. Come up with a protocol for inter-machine communication and networking and start hooking the machines together. There doesn't need to be any AI at this point, so the technology and ability to do this is not only here, it's been in use for ages.
Similarly, coming up with a system that allows doctors to more easily utilize electronic records will result in them being used more consistently and effectively. But, again, it needs to follow a universal protocol that ALL electronic records vendors need to follow for interoperability.
Solving these two issues will save millions of dollars and thousands of lives. The technology to do it is cheap and ubiquitous and paves the way for more advanced systems later on. As long as we continue to quibble about what those advanced systems need to do, we're never going to take the first step to getting there.
I'll be honest, I think the issue here is involving people like Szolovits. He may be a very bright guy, but he's a researcher not an engineer. You want ideas, you go to a researcher. You want solutions, you go to an engineer.
So who will people sue? A machine? Guess there is a new American dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile getting a common language for the medical machines (and personell) is a noble idea, at the moment it is almost as inconcievable as faster than light travel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe cannot even get our every day computers to speak the same language (the OS), and users defend their choice of OS with a passionate religious furvour. All that emotional energy over a machine to entertain. Just imagine the fuss about something as important as health care.
The only way to make it so would be to legislate it....and the lobbying and carrying on about that would last until the next millennium.
Actually, they all do speak it, albeit using slightly different dialects: Web browsers are made to work across OSes, not to mention a tiny company that has built an OS around a browser (Hey Google!). It's not a matter of OS anyway. It's a matter of data exchange protocols. I have to agree that legislating the use of a specific protocol, existing or newfound, will be a lengthy process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for providing this info. Working out new algorithms and applying them on real-life data is an exciting and challenging task.Very helpful website.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.newgraduatenursingjobs.net