AI’s ‘radical potential’ to personalize medicine using population data

Clinicians equipped with machine learning can, in theory, apply what works for one patient to the care of another—and another, and another—and so on.

Ideally, the subsequent patients end up receiving care that is both personalized to them and driven by ever-bigger big data. Meanwhile administrators and payers get care protocols with less variation and thus less cost.

Stated another way: “The radical potential of AI is that health systems no longer need to choose between personalization and scale.”

That’s the thinking of Benjamin Fels, who has a vested interest in seeing the technology from the perspective of an AI enthusiast: He’s CEO of the Seattle-based healthcare AI company Macro-Eyes.

And yet Fels has written a balanced and thoughtful piece on healthcare’s need to make better use of data if it is to get the biggest return on its inevitable AI investment.

Financial Times published the piece May 18.

“What could go wrong? A great deal,” Fels writes. “Bias in medical machine learning is deadly. The most accessible data to train models for healthcare do not reflect the global burden of disease. Likewise, in clinical trials, participants do not accurately reflect the diversity of patients.”

Fels adds that bias in machine learning tends to throw cold water on AI’s potential whenever algorithms are trained on insufficiently broad data.

“The machine’s reality is what you show it,” he points out. “Realign the training data and the algorithm learns to correct former tendencies.”

The best AI, he suggests, uses massive datasets to continually remind provider organizations that their patients are individuals, not groups or even subgroups.

The technology’s ability to pull this off is counterintuitive, Fels acknowledges. However, if properly deployed, healthcare AI “could reinforce the humanity of medicine by emphasizing what a provider notices about a patient,” he writes, “making the interaction between patient and provider ever more central.”

Financial Times has posted the piece in full for free.

Dave Pearson

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.

Around the web

Compensation for heart specialists continues to climb. What does this say about cardiology as a whole? Could private equity's rising influence bring about change? We spoke to MedAxiom CEO Jerry Blackwell, MD, MBA, a veteran cardiologist himself, to learn more.

The American College of Cardiology has shared its perspective on new CMS payment policies, highlighting revenue concerns while providing key details for cardiologists and other cardiology professionals. 

As debate simmers over how best to regulate AI, experts continue to offer guidance on where to start, how to proceed and what to emphasize. A new resource models its recommendations on what its authors call the “SETO Loop.”