Search

The First International Conference in Systems and Network Medicine gathered together 200 global thought leaders, scientists, clinicians, academicians, industry and government experts, medical and graduate students, postdoctoral scholars and policymakers. Held at Georgetown University Conference Center in Washington D.C. on September 11-13, 2019, the event featured a day of pre-conference lectures and hands-on bioinformatic computational workshops followed by two days of deep and diverse scientific talks, panel discussions with eminent thought leaders, and scientific poster presentations. Topics ranged from: Systems and Network Medicine in Clinical Practice; the role of -omics technologies in Health Care; the role of Education and Ethics in Clinical Practice, Systems Thinking, and Rare Diseases; and the role of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. The conference served as a unique nexus for interdisciplinary discovery and dialogue and fostered formation of new insights and possibilities for health care systems advances.

Importance The development of artificial intelligence (AI) and other machine diagnostic systems, also known as software as a medical device, and its recent introduction into clinical practice requires a deeply rooted foundation in bioethics for consideration by regulatory agencies and other stakeholders around the globe. Objectives To initiate a dialogue on the issues to consider when developing a bioethically sound foundation for AI in medicine, based on images of eye structures, for discussion with all stakeholders. Evidence Review The scope of the issues and summaries of the discussions under consideration by the Foundational Principles of Ophthalmic Imaging and Algorithmic Interpretation Working Group, as first presented during the Collaborative Community on Ophthalmic Imaging inaugural meeting on September 7, 2020, and afterward in the working group. Findings Artificial intelligence has the potential to improve health care access and patient outcome fundamentally while decreasing disparities, lowering cost, and enhancing the care team. Nevertheless, substantial concerns exist. Bioethicists, AI algorithm experts, as well as the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies, industry, patient advocacy groups, clinicians and their professional societies, other provider groups, and payors (i.e., stakeholders) working together in collaborative communities to resolve the fundamental ethical issues of nonmaleficence, autonomy, and equity are essential to attain this potential. Resolution impacts all levels of the design, validation, and implementation of AI in medicine. Design, validation, and implementation of AI warrant meticulous attention. Conclusions and Relevance The development of a bioethically sound foundation may be possible if it is based in the fundamental ethical principles of nonmaleficence, autonomy, and equity for considerations for the design, validation, and implementation for AI systems. Achieving such a foundation will be helpful for continuing successful introduction into medicine before consideration by regulatory agencies. Important improvements in accessibility and quality of health care, decrease in health disparities, and lower cost thereby can be achieved. These considerations should be discussed with all stakeholders and expanded on as a useful initiation of this dialogue.

Digital health products have played an important role in the COVID-19 response, from supporting the remote monitoring of patients to enabling continuity in data collection for clinical trials. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a number of temporary policies to support digital health innovation during the pandemic, such as guidance documents to expand the use of digital therapeutics for psychiatric disorders and medical devices for remote patient monitoring. In this article, we contextualize these policies to the agency’s existing regulatory framework for digital health, outline key considerations for patients and health care providers, and identify implications for the future of digital health innovation.

Importance There is an enormous and growing amount of data available from individual cancer cases, which makes the work of clinical oncologists more demanding. This data challenge has attracted engineers to create software that aims to improve cancer diagnosis or treatment. However, the move to use computers in the oncology clinic for diagnosis or treatment has led to instances of premature or inappropriate use of computational predictive systems. Objective To evaluate best practices for developing and assessing the clinical utility of predictive computational methods in oncology. Evidence Review The National Cancer Policy Forum and the Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a workshop to examine the use of multidimensional data derived from patients with cancer and the computational methods used to analyze these data. The workshop convened diverse stakeholders and experts, including computer scientists, oncology clinicians, statisticians, patient advocates, industry leaders, ethicists, leaders of health systems (academic and community based), private and public health insurance carriers, federal agencies, and regulatory authorities. Key characteristics for successful computational oncology were considered in 3 thematic areas: (1) data quality, completeness, sharing, and privacy; (2) computational methods for analysis, interpretation, and use of oncology data; and (3) clinical infrastructure and expertise for best use of computational precision oncology. Findings Quality control was found to be essential across all stages, from data collection to data processing, management, and use. Collecting a standardized parsimonious data set at every cancer diagnosis and restaging could enhance reliability and completeness of clinical data for precision oncology. Data completeness refers to key data elements such as information about cancer diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, while data quality depends on whether appropriate variables have been measured in valid and reliable ways. Collecting data from diverse populations can reduce the risk of creating invalid and biased algorithms. Computational systems that aid clinicians should be classified as software as a medical device and thus regulated according to the potential risk posed. To facilitate appropriate use of computational methods that interpret high-dimensional data in oncology, treating physicians need access to multidisciplinary teams with broad expertise and deep training among a subset of clinical oncology fellows in clinical informatics. Conclusions and Relevance Workshop discussions suggested best practices in demonstrating the clinical utility of predictive computational methods for diagnosing or treating cancer.

As we enter the information age of health care, digital health technologies offer significant opportunities to optimize both clinical care delivery and clinical research. Despite their potential, the use of such information technologies in clinical care and research faces major data quality, privacy, and regulatory concerns. In hopes of addressing both the promise and challenges facing digital health technologies in the transformation of health care, we convened a think tank meeting with academic, industry, and regulatory representatives in December 2016 in Washington, DC. In this paper, we summarize the proceedings of the think tank meeting and aim to delineate a framework for appropriately using digital health technologies in healthcare delivery and research.