Context: As the role of AI in healthcare continues to expand there is increasing awareness of the potential pitfalls of AI and the need for guidance to avoid them. Objectives: To provide ethical guidance on developing narrow AI applications for surgical training curricula. We define standardised approaches to developing AI driven applications in surgical training that address current recognised ethical implications of utilising AI on surgical data.Weaimtodescribeanethicalapproachbasedonthecurrentevidence,understandingofAI and available technologies, by seeking consensus from an expert committee. Evidence acquisition: The project was carried out in 3 phases: (1) A steering group was formed to review the literature and summarize current evidence. (2) A larger expert panel convened and discussed the ethical implications of AI application based on the current evidence. A survey was created, with input from panel members. (3) Thirdly, panel-based consensus findings were determinedusinganonline Delphi processto formulateguidance. 30 experts in AI implementation and/or training including clinicians, academics and industry contributed. The Delphi process underwent 3 rounds. Additions to the second and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as 80% agreement.

Ethical implications of AI in robotic surgical training: A Delphi consensus statement

Arezzo, Alberto;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Context: As the role of AI in healthcare continues to expand there is increasing awareness of the potential pitfalls of AI and the need for guidance to avoid them. Objectives: To provide ethical guidance on developing narrow AI applications for surgical training curricula. We define standardised approaches to developing AI driven applications in surgical training that address current recognised ethical implications of utilising AI on surgical data.Weaimtodescribeanethicalapproachbasedonthecurrentevidence,understandingofAI and available technologies, by seeking consensus from an expert committee. Evidence acquisition: The project was carried out in 3 phases: (1) A steering group was formed to review the literature and summarize current evidence. (2) A larger expert panel convened and discussed the ethical implications of AI application based on the current evidence. A survey was created, with input from panel members. (3) Thirdly, panel-based consensus findings were determinedusinganonline Delphi processto formulateguidance. 30 experts in AI implementation and/or training including clinicians, academics and industry contributed. The Delphi process underwent 3 rounds. Additions to the second and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as 80% agreement.
2022
1
10
Collins, Justin W.; Marcus, Hani J.; Ghazi, Ahmed; Sridhar, Ashwin; Hashimoto, Daniel; Hager, Gregory; Arezzo, Alberto; Jannin, Pierre; Maier-Hein, Lena; Marz, Keno; Valdastri, Pietro; Mori, Kensaku; Elson, Daniel; Giannarou, Stamatia; Slack, Mark; Hares, Luke; Beaulieu, Yanick; Levy, Jeff; Laplante, Guy; Ramadorai, Arvind; Jarc, Anthony; Andrews, Ben; Garcia, Pablo; Neemuchwala, Huzefa; Andrusaite, Alina; Kimpe, Tom; Hawkes, David; Kelly, John D.; Stoyanov, Danail
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S2405456921001127-main.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 731.47 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
731.47 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1788359
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 21
social impact