Understanding Physician's Perspectives on AI in Health Care: Protocol for a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Vignette Study.

BACKGROUND: As the availability and performance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support (CDS) systems improve, physicians and other care providers poised to be on the front lines will be increasingly tasked with using these tools in patient care and incorporating their outputs into clinical decision-making processes. Vignette studies provide a means to explore emerging hypotheses regarding how context-specific factors, such as clinical risk, the amount of information provided about the AI, and the AI result, may impact physician acceptance and use of AI-based CDS tools. To best anticipate how such factors influence the decision-making of frontline physicians in clinical scenarios involving AI decision-support tools, hypothesis-driven research is needed that enables scenario testing before the implementation and deployment of these tools. OBJECTIVE: This study's objectives are to (1) design an original, web-based vignette-based survey that features hypothetical scenarios based on emerging or real-world applications of AI-based CDS systems that will vary systematically by features related to clinical risk, the amount of information provided about the AI, and the AI result; and (2) test and determine causal effects of specific factors on the judgments and perceptions salient to physicians' clinical decision-making. METHODS: US-based physicians with specialties in family or internal medicine will be recruited through email and mail (target n=420). Through a web-based survey, participants will be randomized to a 3-part "sequential multiple assignment randomization trial (SMART) vignette" detailing a hypothetical clinical scenario involving an AI decision support tool. The SMART vignette design is similar to the SMART design but adapted to a survey design. Each respondent will be randomly assigned to 1 of the possible vignette variations of the factors we are testing at each stage, which include the level of clinical risk, the amount of information provided about the AI, and the certainty of the AI output. Respondents will be given questions regarding their hypothetical decision-making in response to the hypothetical scenarios. RESULTS: The study is currently in progress and data collection is anticipated to be completed in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based vignette study will provide information on how contextual factors such as clinical risk, the amount of information provided about an AI tool, and the AI result influence physicians' reactions to hypothetical scenarios that are based on emerging applications of AI in frontline health care settings. Our newly proposed "SMART vignette" design offers several benefits not afforded by the extensively used traditional vignette design, due to the 2 aforementioned features. These advantages are (1) increased validity of analyses targeted at understanding the impact of a factor on the decision outcome, given previous outcomes and other contextual factors; and (2) balanced sample sizes across groups. This study will generate a better understanding of physician decision-making within this context. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54787.

Academic machine learning researchers' ethical perspectives on algorithm development for health care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to describe academic machine learning (ML) researchers' ethical considerations regarding the development of ML tools intended for use in clinical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with a sample of ML researchers in medicine (N = 10) as part of a larger study investigating stakeholders' ethical considerations in the translation of ML tools in medicine. We used a qualitative descriptive design, applying conventional qualitative content analysis in order to allow participant perspectives to emerge directly from the data. RESULTS: Every participant viewed their algorithm development work as holding ethical significance. While participants shared positive attitudes toward continued ML innovation, they described concerns related to data sampling and labeling (eg, limitations to mitigating bias; ensuring the validity and integrity of data), and algorithm training and testing (eg, selecting quantitative targets; assessing reproducibility). Participants perceived a need to increase interdisciplinary training across stakeholders and to envision more coordinated and embedded approaches to addressing ethics issues. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Participants described key areas where increased support for ethics may be needed; technical challenges affecting clinical acceptability; and standards related to scientific integrity, beneficence, and justice that may be higher in medicine compared to other industries engaged in ML innovation. Our results help shed light on the perspectives of ML researchers in medicine regarding the range of ethical issues they encounter or anticipate in their work, including areas where more attention may be needed to support the successful development and integration of medical ML tools.