Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Epistemic Rights and Responsibilities of Digital Simulacra for Biomedicine.

Big data and AI have enabled digital simulation for prediction of future health states or behaviors of specific individuals, populations or humans in general. "Digital simulacra" use multimodal datasets to develop computational models that are virtual representations of people or groups, generating predictions of how systems evolve and react to interventions over time. These include digital twins and virtual patients for in silico clinical trials, both of which seek to transform research and health care by speeding innovation and bridging the epistemic gap between population-based research findings and their application to the individual. Nevertheless, digital simulacra mark a major milestone on a trajectory to embrace the epistemic culture of data science and a potential abandonment of medical epistemological concepts of causality and representation. In doing so, "data first" approaches potentially shift moral attention from actual patients and principles, such as equity, to simulated patients and patient data.

Practical Approaches to Enhancing Fairness, Social Responsibility and the Inclusion of Diverse Viewpoints in Biomedicine.

The following sections are included:Workshop DescriptionLearning ObjectivesPresenter InformationAbout the Workshop OrganizersPresentationsSpeaker Presentations.

Ethical Considerations in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials of Artificial Intelligence.

Importance: Safe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical settings often requires randomized clinical trials (RCT) to compare AI efficacy with conventional care. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is at the forefront of clinical AI applications, marked by the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) De Novo authorization for an autonomous AI for such use. Objective: To determine the generalizability of the 7 ethical research principles for clinical trials endorsed by the National Institute of Health (NIH), and identify ethical concerns unique to clinical trials of AI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included semistructured interviews conducted with 11 investigators engaged in the design and implementation of clinical trials of AI for DR screening from November 11, 2022, to February 20, 2023. The study was a collaboration with the ACCESS (AI for Children's Diabetic Eye Exams) trial, the first clinical trial of autonomous AI in pediatrics. Participant recruitment initially utilized purposeful sampling, and later expanded with snowball sampling. Study methodology for analysis combined a deductive approach to explore investigators' perspectives of the 7 ethical principles for clinical research endorsed by the NIH and an inductive approach to uncover the broader ethical considerations implementing clinical trials of AI within care delivery. Results: A total of 11 participants (mean [SD] age, 47.5 [12.0] years; 7 male [64%], 4 female [36%]; 3 Asian [27%], 8 White [73%]) were included, with diverse expertise in ethics, ophthalmology, translational medicine, biostatistics, and AI development. Key themes revealed several ethical challenges unique to clinical trials of AI. These themes included difficulties in measuring social value, establishing scientific validity, ensuring fair participant selection, evaluating risk-benefit ratios across various patient subgroups, and addressing the complexities inherent in the data use terms of informed consent. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study identified practical ethical challenges that investigators need to consider and negotiate when conducting AI clinical trials, exemplified by the DR screening use-case. These considerations call for further guidance on where to focus empirical and normative ethical efforts to best support conduct clinical trials of AI and minimize unintended harm to trial participants.

Ethical, Legal and Social Issues Surrounding Research on Genetic Contributions to Anti-Social Behavior.

Scientific study of genetic contributions to chronic antisocial behavior has stemmed from many lines of research in recent years. Genetic research involving twin, family, and adoption studies have traditionally been used to compare the health and behavior outcomes of individuals who share the same environment or hereditary lineage; several of these studies have concluded that heredity plays some role in the formation of chronic antisocial behavior, including various forms of aggression and chronic norm-defiance. However, the ethical, social, and legal environment surrounding research on the biological contributions to antisocial behavior in the United States is contentious. Although there has been some discussion in the last few decades regarding the ethical, social, and legal concerns around this type of research within academic and policy circles, analysis and discussion of these concerns rarely appear together. This paper explores the main themes that interact to form the basis of much of the resistance to positing biological contributions to antisocial behavior.

Fairness as an afterthought: An American perspective on fairness in model developer-clinician user collaborations.

Numerous ethics guidelines have been handed down over the last few years on the ethical applications of machine learning models. Virtually every one of them mentions the importance of "fairness" in the development and use of these models. Unfortunately, though, these ethics documents omit providing a consensually adopted definition or characterization of fairness. As one group of authors observed, these documents treat fairness as an "afterthought" whose importance is undeniable but whose essence seems strikingly elusive. In this essay, which offers a distinctly American treatment of "fairness," we comment on a number of fairness formulations and on qualitative or statistical methods that have been encouraged to achieve fairness. We argue that none of them, at least from an American moral perspective, provides a one-size-fits-all definition of or methodology for securing fairness that could inform or standardize fairness over the universe of use cases witnessing machine learning applications. Instead, we argue that because fairness comprehensions and applications reflect a vast range of use contexts, model developers and clinician users will need to engage in thoughtful collaborations that examine how fairness should be conceived and operationalized in the use case at issue. Part II of this paper illustrates key moments in these collaborations, especially when inter and intra disagreement occurs among model developer and clinician user groups over whether a model is fair or unfair. We conclude by noting that these collaborations will likely occur over the lifetime of a model if its claim to fairness is to advance beyond "afterthought" status.

Passive monitoring by smart toilets for precision health.

Smart toilets are a key tool for enabling precision health monitoring in the home, but such passive monitoring has ethical considerations.

The impact of commercial health datasets on medical research and health-care algorithms.

As the health-care industry emerges into a new era of digital health driven by cloud data storage, distributed computing, and machine learning, health-care data have become a premium commodity with value for private and public entities. Current frameworks of health data collection and distribution, whether from industry, academia, or government institutions, are imperfect and do not allow researchers to leverage the full potential of downstream analytical efforts. In this Health Policy paper, we review the current landscape of commercial health data vendors, with special emphasis on the sources of their data, challenges associated with data reproducibility and generalisability, and ethical considerations for data vending. We argue for sustainable approaches to curating open-source health data to enable global populations to be included in the biomedical research community. However, to fully implement these approaches, key stakeholders should come together to make health-care datasets increasingly accessible, inclusive, and representative, while balancing the privacy and rights of individuals whose data are being collected.

Structural under-reporting of informed consent, data handling and sharing, ethical approval, and application of Open Science principles as proxies for study quality conduct in COVID-19 research: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required science to provide answers rapidly to combat the outbreak. Hence, the reproducibility and quality of conducting research may have been threatened, particularly regarding privacy and data protection, in varying ways around the globe. The objective was to investigate aspects of reporting informed consent and data handling as proxies for study quality conduct. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase. The search was performed on November 8th, 2020. Studies with hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 over 18 years old were eligible for inclusion. With a focus on informed consent, data were extracted on the study design, prestudy protocol registration, ethical approval, data anonymisation, data sharing and data transfer as proxies for study quality. For reasons of comparison, data regarding country income level, study location and journal impact factor were also collected. RESULTS: 972 studies were included. 21.3% of studies reported informed consent, 42.6% reported waivers of consent, 31.4% did not report consent information and 4.7% mentioned other types of consent. Informed consent reporting was highest in clinical trials (94.6%) and lowest in retrospective cohort studies (15.0%). The reporting of consent versus no consent did not differ significantly by journal impact factor (p=0.159). 16.8% of studies reported a prestudy protocol registration or design. Ethical approval was described in 90.9% of studies. Information on anonymisation was provided in 17.0% of studies. In 257 multicentre studies, 1.2% reported on data sharing agreements, and none reported on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data principles. 1.2% reported on open data. Consent was most often reported in the Middle East (42.4%) and least often in North America (4.7%). Only one report originated from a low-income country. DISCUSSION: Informed consent and aspects of data handling and sharing were under-reported in publications concerning COVID-19 and differed between countries, which strains study quality conduct when in dire need of answers.

Psychiatric genomics, mental health equity, and intersectionality: A framework for research and practice.

The causal mechanisms and manifestations of psychiatric illness cannot be neatly narrowed down or quantified for diagnosis and treatment. Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) might renew hope for locating genetic predictors and producing precision medicines, however such hopes can also distract from appreciating social factors and structural injustices that demand more socially inclusive and equitable approaches to mental healthcare. A more comprehensive approach begins with recognizing that there is no one type of contributor to mental illness and its duration that should be prioritized over another. We argue that, if the search for biological specificity is to complement the need to alleviate the social distress that produces mental health inequities, psychiatric genomics must incorporate an intersectional dimension to models of mental illness across research priorities, scientific frameworks, and clinical applications. We outline an intersectional framework that will guide all professionals working in the expanding field of psychiatric genomics to better incorporate issues of social context, racial and cultural diversity, and downstream ethical considerations into their work.

Ethical Development of Digital Phenotyping Tools for Mental Health Applications: Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital phenotyping (also known as personal sensing, intelligent sensing, or body computing) involves the collection of biometric and personal data in situ from digital devices, such as smartphones, wearables, or social media, to measure behavior or other health indicators. The collected data are analyzed to generate moment-by-moment quantification of a person's mental state and potentially predict future mental states. Digital phenotyping projects incorporate data from multiple sources, such as electronic health records, biometric scans, or genetic testing. As digital phenotyping tools can be used to study and predict behavior, they are of increasing interest for a range of consumer, government, and health care applications. In clinical care, digital phenotyping is expected to improve mental health diagnoses and treatment. At the same time, mental health applications of digital phenotyping present significant areas of ethical concern, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection, consent, bias, and accountability. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop consensus statements regarding key areas of ethical guidance for mental health applications of digital phenotyping in the United States. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the emerging ethical challenges posed by digital phenotyping for mental health applications and to formulate guidance for addressing these challenges. Experts in digital phenotyping, data science, mental health, law, and ethics participated as panelists in the study. The panel arrived at consensus recommendations through an iterative process involving interviews and surveys. The panelists focused primarily on clinical applications for digital phenotyping for mental health but also included recommendations regarding transparency and data protection to address potential areas of misuse of digital phenotyping data outside of the health care domain. RESULTS: The findings of this study showed strong agreement related to these ethical issues in the development of mental health applications of digital phenotyping: privacy, transparency, consent, accountability, and fairness. Consensus regarding the recommendation statements was strongest when the guidance was stated broadly enough to accommodate a range of potential applications. The privacy and data protection issues that the Delphi participants found particularly critical to address related to the perceived inadequacies of current regulations and frameworks for protecting sensitive personal information and the potential for sale and analysis of personal data outside of health systems. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi study found agreement on a number of ethical issues to prioritize in the development of digital phenotyping for mental health applications. The Delphi consensus statements identified general recommendations and principles regarding the ethical application of digital phenotyping to mental health. As digital phenotyping for mental health is implemented in clinical care, there remains a need for empirical research and consultation with relevant stakeholders to further understand and address relevant ethical issues.

Ethical issues in using ambient intelligence in health-care settings.

Ambient intelligence is increasingly finding applications in health-care settings, such as helping to ensure clinician and patient safety by monitoring staff compliance with clinical best practices or relieving staff of burdensome documentation tasks. Ambient intelligence involves using contactless sensors and contact-based wearable devices embedded in health-care settings to collect data (eg, imaging data of physical spaces, audio data, or body temperature), coupled with machine learning algorithms to efficiently and effectively interpret these data. Despite the promise of ambient intelligence to improve quality of care, the continuous collection of large amounts of sensor data in health-care settings presents ethical challenges, particularly in terms of privacy, data management, bias and fairness, and informed consent. Navigating these ethical issues is crucial not only for the success of individual uses, but for acceptance of the field as a whole.