Search

Background: Allocation of scarce organs for transplantation is ethically challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to assist in liver allocation, however the ethics of this remains unexplored and the view of the public unknown. The aim of this paper was to assess public attitudes on whether AI should be used in liver allocation and how it should be implemented. Methods: We first introduce some potential ethical issues concerning AI in liver allocation, before analysing a pilot survey including online responses from 172 UK laypeople, recruited through Prolific Academic. Findings: Most participants found AI in liver allocation acceptable (69.2%) and would not be less likely to donate their organs if AI was used in allocation (72.7%). Respondents thought AI was more likely to be consistent and less biased compared to humans, although were concerned about the "dehumanisation of healthcare" and whether AI could consider important nuances in allocation decisions. Participants valued accuracy, impartiality, and consistency in a decision-maker, more than interpretability and empathy. Respondents were split on whether AI should be trained on previous decisions or programmed with specific objectives. Whether allocation decisions were made by transplant committee or AI, participants valued consideration of urgency, survival likelihood, life years gained, age, future medication compliance, quality of life, future alcohol use and past alcohol use. On the other hand, the majority thought the following factors were not relevant to prioritisation: past crime, future crime, future societal contribution, social disadvantage, and gender. Conclusions: There are good reasons to use AI in liver allocation, and our sample of participants appeared to support its use. If confirmed, this support would give democratic legitimacy to the use of AI in this context and reduce the risk that donation rates could be affected negatively. Our findings on specific ethical concerns also identify potential expectations and reservations laypeople have regarding AI in this area, which can inform how AI in liver allocation could be best implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) are being used to quantify gait characteristics that are associated with increased fall risk, but the current limitation is the lack of contextual information that would clarify IMU data. Use of wearable video-based cameras would provide a comprehensive understanding of an individual's habitual fall risk, adding context to clarify abnormal IMU data. Generally, there is taboo when suggesting the use of wearable cameras to capture real-world video, clinical and patient apprehension due to ethical and privacy concerns. This perspective proposes that routine use of wearable cameras could be realized within digital medicine through AI-based computer vision models to obfuscate/blur/shade sensitive information while preserving helpful contextual information for a comprehensive patient assessment. Specifically, no person sees the raw video data to understand context, rather AI interprets the raw video data first to blur sensitive objects and uphold privacy. That may be more routinely achieved than one imagines as contemporary resources exist. Here, to showcase/display the potential an exemplar model is suggested via off-the-shelf methods to detect and blur sensitive objects (e.g., people) with an accuracy of 88%. Here, the benefit of the proposed approach includes a more comprehensive understanding of an individual's free-living fall risk (from free-living IMU-based gait) without compromising privacy. More generally, the video and AI approach could be used beyond fall risk to better inform habitual experiences and challenges across a range of clinical cohorts. Medicine is becoming more receptive to wearables as a helpful toolbox, camera-based devices should be plausible instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]