8 principles for AI ethics in pathology, other specialties
Clinical laboratories store a motherlode of objective and structured patient data well primed for mining with AI. Given this reality, pathologists and medical laboratorians must set and abide by principles guiding the ethical use of the technology.
To that end, a group of experts in the field has fleshed out the relevant issues, publishing nonbinding but insightful guidance in Academic Pathology.
Pathologists and other laboratory professionals are “highly expert in managing systems, both strategically and operationally,” write Brian Jackson, MD, of the University of Utah and colleagues. “They are experts in applying novel technologies for the delivery of safe, high-quality health care at a health system level.”
These qualifications and others, the team suggests, position the field to “play a leading role in pathology AI from both an innovation perspective and a stewardship/governance perspective.”
The team itemizes eight tenets of sound ethics to guardrail the development and use of AI in pathology and lab medicine, most if not all of which seem readily generalizable to other medical specialties:
1. Developers of AI systems should proactively inform patients and the public of how their data are collected and used to develop and validate the developers’ systems.
2. Clinical organizations and developers should provide for informed individuals to control whether and how their personal data are used in the development of pathology AI systems.
3. Developers, validators and implementors of pathology AI systems should ensure that their systems provide measurable benefit to patients and/or populations while minimizing risks and harms.
4. Developers, validators and implementors of pathology AI systems should ensure that both the development process and the resulting developed systems promote fair treatments across all populations.
5. Developers and implementers of pathology AI systems should ensure that their systems are sufficiently transparent and auditable to ensure that the above principles are being followed.
6. Developers, validators and implementors of pathology AI systems should follow scientific norms of broad knowledge sharing and research integrity.
7. Developers, validators and implementors of pathology AI systems should establish formal oversight mechanisms, akin to institutional review boards, to ensure accountability to these ethical principles.
8. Organizations engaged in developing, validating, implementing, selling or purchasing pathology AI systems should hold each other accountable to this set of ethical principles through formal mechanisms such as contracts.
“Artificial intelligence is an increasingly powerful set of technologies with potential to advance diagnostic pathology and laboratory medicine for the benefit of patients,” Jackson and co-authors write. “However, AI brings a complex mix of benefits, risks and costs. Maximizing the benefits while minimizing risks and costs requires managing the technology within an ethical framework. Pathologists and other laboratory professionals, along with their clinical and academic organizations as well as potential industry partners, have an obligation to promote ethical AI development, validation and implementation both within their own organizations and with external partners.”
The paper is available in full for free.
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.