Disposable catheter dummy. A new device for x-ray examination of the upper digestive tract in infants.

K. Bergström,H. Jorulf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1440-1673.1971.TB01235.X

1971-02-01

Australasian Radiology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Combined turbo coding and unitary space-time modulation

I. Bahceci,T. Duman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2001.935969

2001-06-24

Abstract:We present a scheme employing turbo codes together with unitary space-time constellations for Rayleigh block fading channels when no channel state information (CSI) is available. We present via simulations that coding gains up to 16 dB is possible over the original uncoded system at a bit error rate of 10/sup -5/.
SDCEP Dental Prescribing app

D. Richards

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400867

2012-06-01

Evidence-Based Dentistry

Abstract:
What kills patients with rheumatoid arthritis?

C. Kelly,J. Hamilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/RHEUMATOLOGY/KEL332

2006-07-28

Rheumatology

Abstract:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) die at a younger age than their peers in most hospital series [1], while an increase in standardized mortality rate (SMR) has not been a consistent feature in recent studies of RA patients from date of diagnosis (inception cohorts) [2]. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy are likely to be the presence of more severe disease in hospitalbased series and the advent of earlier and more effective treatment in recent years. However, an increased mortality from vascular disease in RA has been consistently reported in both established and inception studies [1, 3], and an increased SMR for respiratory disease and lymphoreticular cancers has also been recognized in most series. A detailed study in this month’s issue addresses the important question of whether patients with RA treated early and actively with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) still have increased mortality rates [4]. The study assesses the effect of modern out-patient intervention on all-cause mortality in a large inception cohort over the first 7 yrs of their disease, and examines whether this relates to disease severity or duration. Detailed assessment of the causes of death offers new insights into the relevance of both cardiovascular and respiratory contributions to mortality and attempts to identify risk factor profiles. Although increasing age and male gender have been recognized as predictors for an earlier death in RA, few other clues as to an individual’s risk of premature death have been identified. However, recent work has shown direct links between rheumatoid disease activity, increased comorbidity and early death [5, 6]. The Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) group [4] reports on 1429 patients recruited within 2 yrs of diagnosis over the 11 yrs from 1986. Although 84% received therapy with DMARDs, the all-cause SMR was significantly raised. After increased age, the odds ratios for death were most elevated in those patients with extra-articular disease and in those with established comorbidity. Early death was most often due to cardiovascular disease or interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, although other vascular and respiratory causes were also over-represented. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 31% of all deaths while pulmonary problems (including respiratory infection and lung cancer) were responsible for almost 29%. Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) accounted for a quarter of all deaths and carried an SMR of 1.49. It was also the most common cause of death at a young age and had a worse prognosis than in patients without RA. There was a relationship between disease activity as assessed by erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and probability of death from IHD, a finding consistent with previous reports linking increased markers of inflammation with coronary artery disease [7]. This suggests that DMARD therapy should protect RA patients from developing IHD, and reinforces the need for such therapy to be commenced early in the disease and used aggressively where possible, aiming for remission within the first year of disease. The link between cardiac disease and other therapeutic agents is less clear. Oral steroids did not have any clear effect on cardiovascular mortality but high-dose or long-term therapy might be expected to adversely affect the traditional risk factor profile by increasing blood pressure and body mass index and worsening the lipid profile. The influence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on cardiovascular health has been much debated lately. COX-2 drugs especially have been linked with an increase in vascular events (in the order of one additional event per 100 patient years), with the data leading to the ultimate withdrawal of rofecoxib. However, a recent major meta analysis of the data on all NSAIDs report that many nonselective agents such as ibuprofen and diclofenac are also associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events, although it was unclear as to whether this effect was linked to dose or duration of treatment [8]. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the ERAS report is the high mortality resulting from interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This accounted for 6% of all deaths and exceeded the combined number of deaths from all other extra-articular features of RA. It especially affected those patients with a younger age at onset of RA. Given that features of IPF can be shown using highresolution computed tomography (HRCT) in up to 20% of RA patients [9], this is a significant finding. Although there is some evidence that the natural history of IPF in RA is better than that in cryptogenic fibrosis [10], there is a paucity of data in the literature on this condition. Recent concern has been expressed that the natural history is worse in patients on biological agents following reports linking death from accelerated IPF in patients receiving etanercept, infliximab or adalimumab. Indeed the BSRBR confirms that deaths from IPF are increased nearly 3fold in patients on anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents when compared with controls on methotrexate. Methotrexate itself has not been shown to cause deterioration in lung function in large series of patients, but nor does it appear to have any beneficial effect on IPF. Its ability to cause pneumonitis places patients with reduced respiratory reserve at increased risk, and is a cogent argument for the assessment of pulmonary function prior to its use, with patients demonstrating a restrictive defect requiring greater definition using HRCT to identify those patients with significant underlying lung disease [11]. Perhaps the choice of DMARD in patients with proven IPF should be driven by consideration of the lung disease as much as by the degree of articular involvement? Drug-related deaths were reported in the ERAS report, and these related largely to the use of NSAIDs which were responsible for eight fatalities resulting from upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage or perforation. Most of these patients had been on long-term therapy with NSAIDs but some had only recently commenced these agents. There is good evidence to implicate Helicobacter pylori infection in upper gastrointestinal ulceration, and recent work has shown that the presence of this bacterial agent together with NSAID exposure in RA patients greatly increases their risk of having an endoscopically visualized peptic ulcer [12]. Drugs may also have contributed to the greatly increased SMR (350) recorded for renal failure in the study, given the propensity of NSAIDs to precipitate renal failure in patients with reduced glomerular filtration rates. Taking these findings together with those linking NSAIDs with increased cardiovascular mortality, it is time for rheumatologists and primary care practitioners to reduce dependence on NSAIDs, particularly in patients with a high 10-yr risk of cardiovascular disease, a history of dyspepsia or evidence of reduced renal function. The risk of death as a result of infection is increased in patients with RA and this is reflected in the ERAS report. Septicaemia had Rheumatology 2007;46:183–184 doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel332 Advance Access publication 26 September 2006
Patients' Perceptions Toward Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction in Health Care: Experimental Study

Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh,Tala Mirzaei,Spurthy Dharanikota

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/25856

2021-11-25

Abstract:Background: It is believed that artificial intelligence (AI) will be an integral part of health care services in the near future and will be incorporated into several aspects of clinical care such as prognosis, diagnostics, and care planning. Thus, many technology companies have invested in producing AI clinical applications. Patients are one of the most important beneficiaries who potentially interact with these technologies and applications; thus, patients' perceptions may affect the widespread use of clinical AI. Patients should be ensured that AI clinical applications will not harm them, and that they will instead benefit from using AI technology for health care purposes. Although human-AI interaction can enhance health care outcomes, possible dimensions of concerns and risks should be addressed before its integration with routine clinical care. Objective: The main objective of this study was to examine how potential users (patients) perceive the benefits, risks, and use of AI clinical applications for their health care purposes and how their perceptions may be different if faced with three health care service encounter scenarios. Methods: We designed a 2×3 experiment that crossed a type of health condition (ie, acute or chronic) with three different types of clinical encounters between patients and physicians (ie, AI clinical applications as substituting technology, AI clinical applications as augmenting technology, and no AI as a traditional in-person visit). We used an online survey to collect data from 634 individuals in the United States. Results: The interactions between the types of health care service encounters and health conditions significantly influenced individuals' perceptions of privacy concerns, trust issues, communication barriers, concerns about transparency in regulatory standards, liability risks, benefits, and intention to use across the six scenarios. We found no significant differences among scenarios regarding perceptions of performance risk and social biases. Conclusions: The results imply that incompatibility with instrumental, technical, ethical, or regulatory values can be a reason for rejecting AI applications in health care. Thus, there are still various risks associated with implementing AI applications in diagnostics and treatment recommendations for patients with both acute and chronic illnesses. The concerns are also evident if the AI applications are used as a recommendation system under physician experience, wisdom, and control. Prior to the widespread rollout of AI, more studies are needed to identify the challenges that may raise concerns for implementing and using AI applications. This study could provide researchers and managers with critical insights into the determinants of individuals' intention to use AI clinical applications. Regulatory agencies should establish normative standards and evaluation guidelines for implementing AI in health care in cooperation with health care institutions. Regular audits and ongoing monitoring and reporting systems can be used to continuously evaluate the safety, quality, transparency, and ethical factors of AI clinical applications.
High performance liquid chromatography columns and column technology: a state-of-the art review (Parts I and II).

R. Majors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/18.10.487

Journal of Chromatographic Science

Abstract:
RNA extraction from frozen tissue.

J. Bartlett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-384-4:45

Abstract:
Women’s perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in mental healthcare

Meghan Reading Turchioe,Sarah Harkins,Pooja Desai,Shiveen Kumar,Jessica Kim,Alison Hermann,Rochelle Joly,Yiye Zhang,Jyotishman Pathak,Natalie C Benda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad048

2023-07-04

JAMIA Open

Abstract:Abstract This study aimed to evaluate women’s attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies used in mental health care. We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey of U.S. adults reporting female sex at birth focused on bioethical considerations for AI-based technologies in mental healthcare, stratifying by previous pregnancy. Survey respondents (n = 258) were open to AI-based technologies in mental healthcare but concerned about medical harm and inappropriate data sharing. They held clinicians, developers, healthcare systems, and the government responsible for harm. Most reported it was “very important” for them to understand AI output. More previously pregnant respondents reported being told AI played a small role in mental healthcare was “very important” versus those not previously pregnant (P = .03). We conclude that protections against harm, transparency around data use, preservation of the patient-clinician relationship, and patient comprehension of AI predictions may facilitate trust in AI-based technologies for mental healthcare among women.
Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis

Vinh Vo,Gang Chen,Yves Saint James Aquino,Stacy M Carter,Quynh Nga Do,Maame Esi Woode

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116357

Abstract:Introduction: Despite the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology over the last decade, clinician, patient, and public perceptions of its use in healthcare raise a number of ethical, legal and social questions. We systematically review the literature on attitudes towards the use of AI in healthcare from patients, the general public and health professionals' perspectives to understand these issues from multiple perspectives. Methodology: A search for original research articles using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods published between 1 Jan 2001 to 24 Aug 2021 was conducted on six bibliographic databases. Data were extracted and classified into different themes representing views on: (i) knowledge and familiarity of AI, (ii) AI benefits, risks, and challenges, (iii) AI acceptability, (iv) AI development, (v) AI implementation, (vi) AI regulations, and (vii) Human - AI relationship. Results: The final search identified 7,490 different records of which 105 publications were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. While the majority of patients, the general public and health professionals generally had a positive attitude towards the use of AI in healthcare, all groups indicated some perceived risks and challenges. Commonly perceived risks included data privacy; reduced professional autonomy; algorithmic bias; healthcare inequities; and greater burnout to acquire AI-related skills. While patients had mixed opinions on whether healthcare workers suffer from job loss due to the use of AI, health professionals strongly indicated that AI would not be able to completely replace them in their professions. Both groups shared similar doubts about AI's ability to deliver empathic care. The need for AI validation, transparency, explainability, and patient and clinical involvement in the development of AI was emphasised. To help successfully implement AI in health care, most participants envisioned that an investment in training and education campaigns was necessary, especially for health professionals. Lack of familiarity, lack of trust, and regulatory uncertainties were identified as factors hindering AI implementation. Regarding AI regulations, key themes included data access and data privacy. While the general public and patients exhibited a willingness to share anonymised data for AI development, there remained concerns about sharing data with insurance or technology companies. One key domain under this theme was the question of who should be held accountable in the case of adverse events arising from using AI. Conclusions: While overall positivity persists in attitudes and preferences toward AI use in healthcare, some prevalent problems require more attention. There is a need to go beyond addressing algorithm-related issues to look at the translation of legislation and guidelines into practice to ensure fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI.
Use of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers' perspectives

Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01191-1

2020-07-22

Abstract:Background: Several studies highlight the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems on healthcare delivery. AI-based tools may improve prognosis, diagnostics, and care planning. It is believed that AI will be an integral part of healthcare services in the near future and will be incorporated into several aspects of clinical care. Thus, many technology companies and governmental projects have invested in producing AI-based clinical tools and medical applications. Patients can be one of the most important beneficiaries and users of AI-based applications whose perceptions may affect the widespread use of AI-based tools. Patients should be ensured that they will not be harmed by AI-based devices, and instead, they will be benefited by using AI technology for healthcare purposes. Although AI can enhance healthcare outcomes, possible dimensions of concerns and risks should be addressed before its integration with routine clinical care. Methods: We develop a model mainly based on value perceptions due to the specificity of the healthcare field. This study aims at examining the perceived benefits and risks of AI medical devices with clinical decision support (CDS) features from consumers' perspectives. We use an online survey to collect data from 307 individuals in the United States. Results: The proposed model identifies the sources of motivation and pressure for patients in the development of AI-based devices. The results show that technological, ethical (trust factors), and regulatory concerns significantly contribute to the perceived risks of using AI applications in healthcare. Of the three categories, technological concerns (i.e., performance and communication feature) are found to be the most significant predictors of risk beliefs. Conclusions: This study sheds more light on factors affecting perceived risks and proposes some recommendations on how to practically reduce these concerns. The findings of this study provide implications for research and practice in the area of AI-based CDS. Regulatory agencies, in cooperation with healthcare institutions, should establish normative standard and evaluation guidelines for the implementation and use of AI in healthcare. Regular audits and ongoing monitoring and reporting systems can be used to continuously evaluate the safety, quality, transparency, and ethical factors of AI-based services.
AI-Enabled Mental Health Assessment and Intervention: Bridging Gaps in Access and Quality of Care.

Et. al Sivasubramanian Balasubramanian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52783/pst.159

2023-09-30

Abstract:This paper explores the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in revolutionizing mental health assessment and intervention, aiming to address critical gaps in both accessibility and quality of care. Mental health disorders pose a global challenge, with a significant portion of the population facing barriers to timely and effective treatment. Traditional mental health care systems often struggle to meet the increasing demand for services, leading to prolonged waiting times and inadequate support for individuals in distress. Moreover, stigmas surrounding mental health further hinder many from seeking help. The advent of AI technologies offers a promising solution to these challenges. Through advanced machine learning algorithms, AI can enhance the accuracy and efficiency of mental health assessments, enabling early detection of disorders and personalized treatment plans. [1] AI-driven chatbots and virtual assistants can provide continuous, accessible support, offering a bridge to care for individuals who may be hesitant or unable to access traditional services. Furthermore, these technologies can help destigmatize mental health discussions by providing a private and non-judgmental space for users. The paper reviews the current landscape of AI applications in mental health, highlighting successful case studies and identifying key ethical considerations. It also delves into the potential pitfalls and challenges associated with AI implementation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balance between technological advancement and human-centric care. Ethical considerations, privacy concerns, and the need for ongoing human oversight are crucial elements in ensuring the responsible deployment of AI in mental health contexts. As AI continues to evolve, it is imperative to establish robust frameworks for regulation, accountability, and transparency to safeguard against unintended consequences. The paper concludes by proposing a holistic approach that integrates AI seamlessly into existing mental health care infrastructures, fostering collaboration between technology developers, mental health professionals, and policymakers to create a future where AI contributes significantly to bridging gaps in access and elevating the overall quality of mental health care.
Perspectives of Patients Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Its Application in Healthcare: A Qualitative Study

Alma Tursynbek,Dilnaz Zhaksylykova,Jonas Preposi Cruz,Ejercito Mangawa Balay‐odao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17584

2024-12-05

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract:Background Artificial intelligence integration into healthcare has gained significant attention in recent years, with its use ranging from disease diagnosis to surgical assistance. While artificial intelligence's potential to improve patient outcomes and optimise patient care is undeniable, concerns regarding privacy, transparency, and the potential for medical errors persist. To take full advantage of artificial intelligence's transformative abilities, understanding patient perceptions and attitudes towards its integration into medicine is crucial for ethical considerations and health outcomes. Purpose This study aimed to describe patients' perceptions of medical artificial intelligence and its integration into the healthcare system, drawing attention to a crucial yet understudied aspect of artificial intelligence adoption in Kazakhstan. Design Descriptive qualitative design. Method From February to March 2024, the researchers conducted semi‐structured interviews amongst 13 patients. The interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed, translated, and then analysed using a thematic analysis approach. The study adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Result Five themes emerged from 13 interviews: the benefits of artificial intelligence on patient care, the importance of human factors on patient care over artificial intelligence, revolutionising patient care delivery through artificial intelligence, patient education and artificial intelligence, and balancing technology and human interaction in artificial intelligence‐driven intervention. Conclusion Patient perceptions of artificial intelligence integration into healthcare were primarily positive. Nevertheless, patients prefer artificial intelligence as a supplementary tool under human supervision due to risks such as possible medical errors and violations of patient privacy. Patient or Public Contribution Patients provided the data for this study. The researchers interviewed them about their perceptions of medical artificial intelligence and its integration into the healthcare system. The patients or the public contributed nothing to the other aspects of the study.

nursing
Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Healthcare: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promises

Gemma Espejo,Wade Reiner,Michael Wenzinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44748

2023-09-05

Cureus

Abstract:The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) heralds a significant revolution in healthcare, particularly in mental health. AI's potential spans diagnostic algorithms, data analysis from diverse sources, and real-time patient monitoring. It is essential for clinicians to remain informed about AI's progress and limitations. The inherent complexity of mental disorders, limited objective data, and retrospective studies pose challenges to the application of AI. Privacy concerns, bias, and the risk of AI replacing human care also loom. Regulatory oversight and physician involvement are needed for equitable AI implementation. AI integration and use in psychotherapy and other services are on the horizon. Patient trust, feasibility, clinical efficacy, and clinician acceptance are prerequisites. In the future, governing bodies must decide on AI ownership, governance, and integration approaches. While AI can enhance clinical decision-making and efficiency, it might also exacerbate moral dilemmas, autonomy loss, and issues regarding the scope of practice. Striking a balance between AI's strengths and limitations involves utilizing AI as a validated clinical supplement under medical supervision, necessitating active clinician involvement in AI research, ethics, and regulation. AI's trajectory must align with optimizing mental health treatment and upholding compassionate care.
Exploring patient perspectives on how they can and should be engaged in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in health care

Samira Adus,Jillian Macklin,Andrew Pinto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10098-2

2023-10-26

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving field which will have implications on both individual patient care and the health care system. There are many benefits to the integration of AI into health care, such as predicting acute conditions and enhancing diagnostic capabilities. Despite these benefits potential harms include algorithmic bias, inadequate consent processes, and implications on the patient-provider relationship. One tool to address patients’ needs and prevent the negative implications of AI is through patient engagement. As it currently stands, patients have infrequently been involved in AI application development for patient care delivery. Furthermore, we are unaware of any frameworks or recommendations specifically addressing patient engagement within the field of AI in health care. Methods We conducted four virtual focus groups with thirty patient participants to understand of how patients can and should be meaningfully engaged within the field of AI development in health care. Participants completed an educational module on the fundamentals of AI prior to participating in this study. Focus groups were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results We found that participants in our study wanted to be engaged at the problem-identification stages using multiple methods such as surveys and interviews. Participants preferred that recruitment methodologies for patient engagement included both in-person and social media-based approaches with an emphasis on varying language modalities of recruitment to reflect diverse demographics. Patients prioritized the inclusion of underrepresented participant populations, longitudinal relationship building, accessibility, and interdisciplinary involvement of other stakeholders in AI development. We found that AI education is a critical step to enable meaningful patient engagement within this field. We have curated recommendations into a framework for the field to learn from and implement in future development. Conclusion Given the novelty and speed at which AI innovation is progressing in health care, patient engagement should be the gold standard for application development. Our proposed recommendations seek to enable patient-centered AI application development in health care. Future research must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of patient engagement in AI application development to ensure that both AI application development and patient engagement are done rigorously, efficiently, and meaningfully.

health care sciences & services
Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients

Sebastian J Fritsch,Andrea Blankenheim,Alina Wahl,Petra Hetfeld,Oliver Maassen,Saskia Deffge,Julian Kunze,Rolf Rossaint,Morris Riedel,Gernot Marx,Johannes Bickenbach

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076221116772

2022-08-10

Arbeitsmedizin Sozialmedizin Umweltmedizin

Abstract:ObjectiveThe attitudes about the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare are controversial. Unlike the perception of healthcare professionals, the attitudes of patients and their companions have been of less interest so far. In this study, we aimed to investigate the perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare among this highly relevant group along with the influence of digital affinity and sociodemographic factors.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a paper-based questionnaire with patients and their companions at a German tertiary referral hospital from December 2019 to February 2020. The questionnaire consisted of three sections examining (a) the respondents' technical affinity, (b) their perception of different aspects of artificial intelligence in healthcare and (c) sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsFrom a total of 452 participants, more than 90% already read or heard about artificial intelligence, but only 24% reported good or expert knowledge. Asked on their general perception, 53.18% of the respondents rated the use of artificial intelligence in medicine as positive or very positive, but only 4.77% negative or very negative. The respondents denied concerns about artificial intelligence, but strongly agreed that artificial intelligence must be controlled by a physician. Older patients, women, persons with lower education and technical affinity were more cautious on the healthcare-related artificial intelligence usage.ConclusionsGerman patients and their companions are open towards the usage of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Although showing only a mediocre knowledge about artificial intelligence, a majority rated artificial intelligence in healthcare as positive. Particularly, patients insist that a physician supervises the artificial intelligence and keeps ultimate responsibility for diagnosis and therapy.
Dressmakers show enhanced stereoscopic vision

Adrien Chopin,D. Levi,D. Bavelier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03425-1

IF: 4.6

2017-06-13

Scientific Reports

Abstract:
The effect of combined treatment methods on survival and toxicity in patients with pancreatic cancer.

B. Brasiūniene,E. Juozaitytė

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/MEDICINA43090093

Medicina

Abstract:In Lithuania, there were 476 new pancreatic cancer cases in 2005. Based on international scientific literature and the results of our retrospective studies, a prospective study has been designed. The aim of study was a prospective evaluation of the impact of two concomitant chemoradiation methods on the survival and the time to disease progression in patients diagnosed with resectable and unresectable pancreatic cancer and prospective evaluation of the safety of two concomitant chemoradiation methods for the treatment of resectable and unresectable pancreatic cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS. During the period of 2000-2005 at the Clinic of Oncology, Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital, we performed a prospective randomized study to analyze two concomitant chemoradiation treatment methods. The patients were stratified according to the resectability of the tumor: with resectable tumor (stage I-IVA) and with unresectable tumor (stage III-IVA). Treatment for each group of patients was selected randomly choosing concomitant chemoradiation treatment: radiation therapy and 5-fluorouracil or radiation therapy and gemcitabine. Criteria of the efficacy of the treatment methods were median survival, time to disease progression, and treatment safety (qualitative and quantitative analysis). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. The treatment methods - radiotherapy and 5-fluorouracil or radiotherapy and gemcitabine - were equally effective when assessing the survival and time to disease progression in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Treatment of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer with radiotherapy and 5-fluorouracil was a safer approach than treatment with radiotherapy and gemcitabine, which induced more severe toxic adverse effects.
Public perspectives on Healthcare and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Sampurna Guha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss7.3207

2021-07-01

International Journal for Innovation Education and Research

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence is the focus term of the 21st century. It has been widely accepted and adopted in several key areas like education, marketing, retail, and engineering among numerous others however the healthcare sector seems to lag in its welcome. AI has the potential to unlock a new transformation in patient care, diagnosis, and mentoring and support services as seen from a review of relevant literature. It is therefore essential to understand how people view Artificial Intelligence and feel its need or demands in improving their health-related needs. This study was designed, keeping this thought in mind. A survey study was carried out in Delhi-NCR with fifty participants belonging to the age group of 18-50 years, who were health-conscious, and proficient in the use of technology like smartphones and other smart devices. The survey findings reveal that respondents desired the integration of Artificial Intelligence-based solutions to medical services ranging from appointment booking through intelligent chatbots to insightful diagnosis using risk profiles, intricate surgeries guided by intelligent robots to mentoring services which described health goals and discussed sustainable solutions towards achieving desired goals through lifestyle changes. Secondary data showed the application of such technologies in hospitals in form of unique personalized programs aimed at improving patient care and promote good health. The study further recommends the use of Artificial Intelligence in healthcare services in both rural and urban areas to reduce the burden on medical professionals, increase personalized and efficient healthcare service provision especially in times of global pandemic and increase people’s consciousness towards the need for good health through the adoption of positive lifestyle changes.
Multinational attitudes towards AI in healthcare and diagnostics among hospital patients

Felix Busch,Lena Hoffmann,Lina Xu,Longjiang Zhang,Bin Hu,Ignacio García-Juàrez,Liz N Toapanta-Yanchapaxi,Natalia Gorelik,Valérie Gorelik,Gaston A Rodriguez-Granillo,Carlos Ferrarotti,Nguyen N Cuong,Chau AP Thi,Murat Tuncel,Gürsan Kaya,Sergio M Solis-Barquero,Maria C Mendez Avila,Nevena G Ivanova,Felipe C Kitamura,Karina YI Hayama,Monserrat L Puntunet Bates,Pedro Iturralde Torres,Esteban Ortiz-Prado,Juan S Izquierdo-Condoy,Gilbert M Schwarz,Jochen G Hofstaetter,Michihiro Hide,Konagi Takeda,Barbara Perić,Gašper Pilko,Hans O Thulesius,Thomas A Lindow,Israel K Kolawole,Samuel Adegboyega Olatoke,Andrzej Grzybowski,Alexandru Corlateanu,Oana-Simina Iaconi,Ting Li,Izabela Domitrz,Katarzyna Kępczyńska,Matúš Mihalčin,Lenka Fašanekovà,Tomasz Zatoński,Katarzyna Fułek,Andràs Molnàr,Stefani Maihoub,Zenewton A da Silva Gama,Luca Saba,Petros Sountoulides,Marcus R Makowski,Hugo JWL Aerts,Lisa C Adams,Keno K Bressem,COMFORT consortium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.01.24312016

2024-09-02

Abstract:The successful implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is dependent upon the acceptance of this technology by key stakeholders, particularly patients, who are the primary beneficiaries of AI-driven outcomes. This international, multicenter, cross-sectional study assessed the attitudes of hospital patients towards AI in healthcare across 43 countries. A total of 13806 patients at 74 hospitals were surveyed between February and November 2023, with 64.8% from the Global North and 35.2% from the Global South. The findings indicate a predominantly favorable general view of AI in healthcare, with 57.6% of respondents expressing a positive attitude. However, attitudes exhibited notable variation based on demographic characteristics, health status, and technological literacy. Female respondents and those with poorer health status exhibited fewer positive attitudes towards AI use in medicine. Conversely, higher levels of AI knowledge and frequent use of technology devices were associated with more positive attitudes. It is noteworthy that less than half of the participants expressed positive attitudes regarding all items pertaining to trust in AI. The lowest level of trust was observed for the accuracy of AI in providing information regarding treatment responses. Patients exhibited a strong preference for explainable AI and physician-led decision-making, even if it meant slightly compromised accuracy. This large-scale, multinational study provides a comprehensive perspective on patient attitudes towards AI in healthcare across six continents. Findings suggest a need for tailored AI implementation strategies that consider patient demographics, health status, and preferences for explainable AI and physician oversight. All study data has been made publicly available to encourage replication and further investigation.
Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: A systematic review with cross-sectional survey

Mingyang Chen,Bo Zhang,Ziting Cai,Samuel Seery,Maria J. Gonzalez,Nasra M. Ali,Ran Ren,Youlin Qiao,Peng Xue,Yu Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.990604

IF: 3.9

2022-08-31

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Background Artificial intelligence (AI) needs to be accepted and understood by physicians and medical students, but few have systematically assessed their attitudes. We investigated clinical AI acceptance among physicians and medical students around the world to provide implementation guidance. Materials and methods We conducted a two-stage study, involving a foundational systematic review of physician and medical student acceptance of clinical AI. This enabled us to design a suitable web-based questionnaire which was then distributed among practitioners and trainees around the world. Results Sixty studies were included in this systematic review, and 758 respondents from 39 countries completed the online questionnaire. Five (62.50%) of eight studies reported 65% or higher awareness regarding the application of clinical AI. Although, only 10–30% had actually used AI and 26 (74.28%) of 35 studies suggested there was a lack of AI knowledge. Our questionnaire uncovered 38% awareness rate and 20% utility rate of clinical AI, although 53% lacked basic knowledge of clinical AI. Forty-five studies mentioned attitudes toward clinical AI, and over 60% from 38 (84.44%) studies were positive about AI, although they were also concerned about the potential for unpredictable, incorrect results. Seventy-seven percent were optimistic about the prospect of clinical AI. The support rate for the statement that AI could replace physicians ranged from 6 to 78% across 40 studies which mentioned this topic. Five studies recommended that efforts should be made to increase collaboration. Our questionnaire showed 68% disagreed that AI would become a surrogate physician, but believed it should assist in clinical decision-making. Participants with different identities, experience and from different countries hold similar but subtly different attitudes. Conclusion Most physicians and medical students appear aware of the increasing application of clinical AI, but lack practical experience and related knowledge. Overall, participants have positive but reserved attitudes about AI. In spite of the mixed opinions around clinical AI becoming a surrogate physician, there was a consensus that collaborations between the two should be strengthened. Further education should be conducted to alleviate anxieties associated with change and adopting new technologies.

medicine, general & internal
Empowering health care consumers & understanding patients' perspectives on AI integration in oncology and surgery: A perspective

Wireko Andrew Awuah,Nicholas Aderinto,Jeisun Poornaselvan,Joecelyn Kirani Tan,Muhammad Hamza Shah,Patrick Ashinze,Anushka G Pujari,Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj,Toufik Abdul-Rahman,Oday Atallah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.2268

2024-07-23

Abstract:Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming oncology and surgery by improving diagnostics, personalizing treatments, and enhancing surgical precision. Patients appreciate AI for its potential to provide accurate prognoses and tailored therapies. However, AI's implementation raises ethical concerns, data privacy issues, and the need for transparent communication between patients and health care providers. This study aims to understand patients' perspectives on AI integration in oncology and surgery to foster a balanced and patient-centered approach. Methods: The study utilized a comprehensive literature review and analysis of existing research on AI applications in oncology and surgery. The focus was on examining patient perceptions, ethical considerations, and the potential benefits and risks associated with AI integration. Data was collected from peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, and expert opinions to provide a broad understanding of the topic. The perspectives of patients was also emphasized to highlight the nuances of their acceptance and concerns regarding AI in their health care. Results: Patients generally perceive AI in oncology and surgery as beneficial, appreciating its potential for more accurate diagnoses, personalized treatment plans, and improved surgical outcomes. They particularly value AI's role in providing timely and precise diagnostics, which can lead to better prognoses and reduced anxiety. However, concerns about data privacy, ethical implications, and the reliability of AI systems were prevalent. Consequently, trust in AI and health care providers was deemed as a crucial factor for patient acceptance. Additionally, the need for transparent communication and ethical safeguards was also highlighted to address these concerns effectively. Conclusion: The integration of AI in oncology and surgeryholds significant promise for enhancing patient care and outcomes. Patients view AI as a valuable tool that can provide accurate prognoses and personalized treatments. However, addressing ethical concerns, ensuring data privacy, and building trust through transparent communication are essential for successful AI integration. Future initiatives should focus on refining AI algorithms, establishing robust ethical guidelines, and enhancing patient education to harmonize technological advancements with patient-centered care principles.

Disposable catheter dummy. A new device for x-ray examination of the upper digestive tract in infants.

Combined turbo coding and unitary space-time modulation

SDCEP Dental Prescribing app

What kills patients with rheumatoid arthritis?

Patients' Perceptions Toward Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction in Health Care: Experimental Study

High performance liquid chromatography columns and column technology: a state-of-the art review (Parts I and II).

RNA extraction from frozen tissue.

Women’s perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies in mental healthcare

Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis

Use of AI-based tools for healthcare purposes: a survey study from consumers' perspectives

AI-Enabled Mental Health Assessment and Intervention: Bridging Gaps in Access and Quality of Care.

Perspectives of Patients Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Its Application in Healthcare: A Qualitative Study

Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Healthcare: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promises

Exploring patient perspectives on how they can and should be engaged in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in health care

Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients

Dressmakers show enhanced stereoscopic vision

The effect of combined treatment methods on survival and toxicity in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Public perspectives on Healthcare and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Multinational attitudes towards AI in healthcare and diagnostics among hospital patients

Acceptance of clinical artificial intelligence among physicians and medical students: A systematic review with cross-sectional survey

Empowering health care consumers & understanding patients' perspectives on AI integration in oncology and surgery: A perspective