Three Epochs of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.

Importance: Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) has reached an all-time high, and health care leaders across the ecosystem are faced with questions about where, when, and how to deploy AI and how to understand its risks, problems, and possibilities. Observations: While AI as a concept has existed since the 1950s, all AI is not the same. Capabilities and risks of various kinds of AI differ markedly, and on examination 3 epochs of AI emerge. AI 1.0 includes symbolic AI, which attempts to encode human knowledge into computational rules, as well as probabilistic models. The era of AI 2.0 began with deep learning, in which models learn from examples labeled with ground truth. This era brought about many advances both in people's daily lives and in health care. Deep learning models are task-specific, meaning they do one thing at a time, and they primarily focus on classification and prediction. AI 3.0 is the era of foundation models and generative AI. Models in AI 3.0 have fundamentally new (and potentially transformative) capabilities, as well as new kinds of risks, such as hallucinations. These models can do many different kinds of tasks without being retrained on a new dataset. For example, a simple text instruction will change the model's behavior. Prompts such as "Write this note for a specialist consultant" and "Write this note for the patient's mother" will produce markedly different content. Conclusions and Relevance: Foundation models and generative AI represent a major revolution in AI's capabilities, ffering tremendous potential to improve care. Health care leaders are making decisions about AI today. While any heuristic omits details and loses nuance, the framework of AI 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 may be helpful to decision-makers because each epoch has fundamentally different capabilities and risks.

Transforming Public Health Data Systems to Advance the Population's Health.

Policy Points Accurate and reliable data systems are critical for delivering the essential services and foundational capabilities of public health for a 21st -century public health infrastructure. Chronic underfunding, workforce shortages, and operational silos limit the effectiveness of America's public health data systems, with the country's anemic response to COVID-19 highlighting the results of long-standing infrastructure gaps. As the public health sector begins an unprecedented data modernization effort, scholars and policymakers should ensure ongoing reforms are aligned with the five components of an ideal public health data system: outcomes and equity oriented, actionable, interoperable, collaborative, and grounded in a robust public health system.

Development and Assessment of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Tool for Skin Condition Diagnosis by Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners in Teledermatology Practices.

Importance: Most dermatologic cases are initially evaluated by nondermatologists such as primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs). Objective: To evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool that assists with diagnoses of dermatologic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multiple-reader, multiple-case diagnostic study developed an AI-based tool and evaluated its utility. Primary care physicians and NPs retrospectively reviewed an enriched set of cases representing 120 different skin conditions. Randomization was used to ensure each clinician reviewed each case either with or without AI assistance; each clinician alternated between batches of 50 cases in each modality. The reviews occurred from February 21 to April 28, 2020. Data were analyzed from May 26, 2020, to January 27, 2021. Exposures: An AI-based assistive tool for interpreting clinical images and associated medical history. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analysis evaluated agreement with reference diagnoses provided by a panel of 3 dermatologists for PCPs and NPs. Secondary analyses included diagnostic accuracy for biopsy-confirmed cases, biopsy and referral rates, review time, and diagnostic confidence. Results: Forty board-certified clinicians, including 20 PCPs (14 women [70.0%]; mean experience, 11.3 [range, 2-32] years) and 20 NPs (18 women [90.0%]; mean experience, 13.1 [range, 2-34] years) reviewed 1048 retrospective cases (672 female [64.2%]; median age, 43 [interquartile range, 30-56] years; 41 920 total reviews) from a teledermatology practice serving 11 sites and provided 0 to 5 differential diagnoses per case (mean [SD], 1.6 [0.7]). The PCPs were located across 12 states, and the NPs practiced in primary care without physician supervision across 9 states. The NPs had a mean of 13.1 (range, 2-34) years of experience and practiced in primary care without physician supervision across 9 states. Artificial intelligence assistance was significantly associated with higher agreement with reference diagnoses. For PCPs, the increase in diagnostic agreement was 10% (95% CI, 8%-11%; P < .001), from 48% to 58%; for NPs, the increase was 12% (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001), from 46% to 58%. In secondary analyses, agreement with biopsy-obtained diagnosis categories of maglignant, precancerous, or benign increased by 3% (95% CI, -1% to 7%) for PCPs and by 8% (95% CI, 3%-13%) for NPs. Rates of desire for biopsies decreased by 1% (95% CI, 0-3%) for PCPs and 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) for NPs; the rate of desire for referrals decreased by 3% (95% CI, 1%-4%) for PCPs and NPs. Diagnostic agreement on cases not indicated for a dermatologist referral increased by 10% (95% CI, 8%-12%) for PCPs and 12% (95% CI, 10%-14%) for NPs, and median review time increased slightly by 5 (95% CI, 0-8) seconds for PCPs and 7 (95% CI, 5-10) seconds for NPs per case. Conclusions and Relevance: Artificial intelligence assistance was associated with improved diagnoses by PCPs and NPs for 1 in every 8 to 10 cases, indicating potential for improving the quality of dermatologic care.

Towards a 21st century health care system: advancing the case for telecare.

Telecare is increasingly recognized as an essential tool for a contemporary twenty-first century health care system even though the evidence is still emerging on its effectiveness. The need to find delivery models like telecare that improve both the convenience and value of care is universal, but particularly pressing for countries like the U.S. and Israel who are facing rising costs related to the needs of individuals with multiple complex conditions. This commentary provides highlights of the current state of practice and policy for telecare and the challenges that remain ahead as it is adopted into the mainstream.

Public Health 3.0: A Call to Action for Public Health to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century.

Public health is what we do together as a society to ensure the conditions in which everyone can be healthy. Although many sectors play key roles, governmental public health is an essential component. Recent stressors on public health are driving many local governments to pioneer a new Public Health 3.0 model in which leaders serve as Chief Health Strategists, partnering across multiple sectors and leveraging data and resources to address social, environmental, and economic conditions that affect health and health equity. In 2016, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched the Public Health 3.0 initiative and hosted listening sessions across the country. Local leaders and community members shared successes and provided insight on actions that would ensure a more supportive policy and resource environment to spread and scale this model. This article summarizes the key findings from those listening sessions and recommendations to achieve Public Health 3.0.