Opportunities and challenges for the computational interpretation of rare variation in clinically important genes.

Genome sequencing is enabling precision medicine-tailoring treatment to the unique constellation of variants in an individual's genome. The impact of recurrent pathogenic variants is often understood, however there is a long tail of rare genetic variants that are uncharacterized. The problem of uncharacterized rare variation is especially acute when it occurs in genes of known clinical importance with functionally consequential variants and associated mechanisms. Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in these genes are discovered at a rate that outpaces current ability to classify them with databases of previous cases, experimental evaluation, and computational predictors. Clinicians are thus left without guidance about the significance of variants that may have actionable consequences. Computational prediction of the impact of rare genetic variation is increasingly becoming an important capability. In this paper, we review the technical and ethical challenges of interpreting the function of rare variants in two settings: inborn errors of metabolism in newborns and pharmacogenomics. We propose a framework for a genomic learning healthcare system with an initial focus on early-onset treatable disease in newborns and actionable pharmacogenomics. We argue that (1) a genomic learning healthcare system must allow for continuous collection and assessment of rare variants, (2) emerging machine learning methods will enable algorithms to predict the clinical impact of rare variants on protein function, and (3) ethical considerations must inform the construction and deployment of all rare-variation triage strategies, particularly with respect to health disparities arising from unbalanced ancestry representation.

Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding.

Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research's risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with a large artificial intelligence grant program at our university. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.

Vagueness in Goals-of-Care Conferences for Critically Ill Patients: Types of Hedge Language Used by Physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Hedge language is a category of language that refers to words or phrases that make statements "fuzzier." We sought to understand how physicians use hedge language during goals-of-care conferences in the ICU. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded goals-of-care conferences in the ICU. SETTING: Thirteen ICUs at six academic and community medical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Conferences were between clinicians and surrogates of incapacitated, critically ill adults. INTERVENTIONS: Four investigators performed a qualitative content analysis of transcripts using deductive followed by inductive methods to identify types of hedge language used by physicians, then coded all instances of hedge language across 40 transcripts to characterize general patterns in usage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 types of hedge language: numeric probabilistic statement ("there's an 80% chance"), qualitative probabilistic statement ("there's a good chance"), nonprobabilistic uncertainty statement ("hard to say for her"), plausibility shield ("we expect"), emotion-based statement ("we're concerned"), attribution shield ("according to Dr. X"), adaptor ("sort of"), metaphor ("the chips are stacking up against her"), time reference ("too soon to tell"), and contingency statement ("if we are lucky"). For most types of hedge language, we identified distinct subtypes. Physicians used hedge language frequently in every transcript (median: 74 hedges per transcript) to address diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. We observed large variation in how frequently each type and subtype of hedge language was used. CONCLUSIONS: Hedge language is ubiquitous in physician-surrogate communication during goals-of-care conferences in the ICU and can be used to introduce vagueness to statements in ways beyond expressing uncertainty. It is not known how hedge language impacts decision-making or clinician-surrogate interactions. This study prioritizes specific types of hedge language for future research based on their frequency and novelty.

Editors' statement on the responsible use of generative AI technologies in scholarly journal publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials.

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Ethics of Using and Sharing Clinical Imaging Data for Artificial Intelligence: A Proposed Framework.

In this article, the authors propose an ethical framework for using and sharing clinical data for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The philosophical premise is as follows: when clinical data are used to provide care, the primary purpose for acquiring the data is fulfilled. At that point, clinical data should be treated as a form of public good, to be used for the benefit of future patients. In their 2013 article, Faden et al argued that all who participate in the health care system, including patients, have a moral obligation to contribute to improving that system. The authors extend that framework to questions surrounding the secondary use of clinical data for AI applications. Specifically, the authors propose that all individuals and entities with access to clinical data become data stewards, with fiduciary (or trust) responsibilities to patients to carefully safeguard patient privacy, and to the public to ensure that the data are made widely available for the development of knowledge and tools to benefit future patients. According to this framework, the authors maintain that it is unethical for providers to "sell" clinical data to other parties by granting access to clinical data, especially under exclusive arrangements, in exchange for monetary or in-kind payments that exceed costs. The authors also propose that patient consent is not required before the data are used for secondary purposes when obtaining such consent is prohibitively costly or burdensome, as long as mechanisms are in place to ensure that ethical standards are strictly followed. Rather than debate whether patients or provider organizations "own" the data, the authors propose that clinical data are not owned at all in the traditional sense, but rather that all who interact with or control the data have an obligation to ensure that the data are used for the benefit of future patients and society.

Genetic disease and intellectual disability as contraindications to transplant listing in the United States: A survey of heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant programs.

Discrimination based on disability is prohibited in organ transplantation, yet studies suggest it continues in listing practices for intellectual disability and genetic diseases. It is not known if this differs between adult and pediatric programs, or by organ type. We performed an online, forced-choice survey of psychosocial listing criteria for adult and pediatric heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant programs in the United States. Of 650 programs contacted, 343 (52.8%) submitted complete. A minority of programs had formal listing guidelines for any condition considered (Down Syndrome, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Becker Muscular Dystrophy, DiGeorge Syndrome, and Wolf Hirschhorn Syndrome; and mild [IQ < 70] and severe [IQ < 35] intellectual disability), although a majority had encountered most. Pediatric programs were significantly (P < .02) more lenient in the level of contraindication to listing for all genetic conditions considered except Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and for mild and severe intellectual disability. Level of contraindication differed significantly by organ type (heart, lung, liver, and kidney) for Duchenne Muscular dystrophy (P = <.001), Becker Muscular Dystrophy (P < .001), DiGeorge Syndrome (P < .001), Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (P = .0012), and severe intellectual disability (P < .001). There is significant variation among transplant programs in availability of guidelines for as well as listing practices regarding genetic diseases and intellectual disability, differing by both adult vs pediatric program, and organ type. Programs with absolute contraindications to listing for specific genetic diseases or intellectual disability should reframe their approach, ensuring individualized assessments and avoiding elimination of patients based on membership in a particular group.

What Does the Word "Treatable" Mean? Implications for Communication and Decision-Making in Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how nonphysicians and physicians interpret the word "treatable" in the context of critical illness. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. SETTING: One academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four nonphysicians (patients and community members) purposively sampled for variation in demographic characteristics and 24 physicians (attending physicians and trainees) purposively sampled from four specialties (critical care, palliative care, oncology, and surgery). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified two distinct concepts that participants used to interpret the word "treatable": 1) a "good news" concept, in which the word "treatable" conveys a positive message about a patient's future, thereby inspiring hope and encouraging further treatment and 2) an "action-oriented" concept, in which the word "treatable" conveys that physicians have an action or intervention available, but does not necessarily imply an improved prognosis or quality of life. The overwhelming majority of nonphysicians adopted the "good news" concept, whereas physicians almost exclusively adopted the "action-oriented" concept. For some nonphysicians, the word "treatable" conveyed a positive message about prognosis and/or further treatment, even when this contradicted previously stated negative information. CONCLUSIONS: Physician use of the word "treatable" may lead patients or surrogates to derive unwarranted good news and false encouragement to pursue treatment, even when physicians have explicitly stated information to the contrary. Further work is needed to determine the extent to which the word "treatable" and its cognates contribute to widespread decision-making and communication challenges in critical care, including discordance about prognosis, misconceptions that palliative treatments are curative, and disputes about potentially inappropriate or futile treatment.

"I don't want to be Henrietta Lacks": diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research.

PURPOSE: To determine whether patients distinguish between biospecimens and electronic health records (EHRs) when considering research participation to inform research protections. METHODS: We conducted 20 focus groups with individuals who identified as African American, Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian, and non-Hispanic white on the collection of biospecimens and EHR data for research. RESULTS: Our study found that many participants did not distinguish between biospecimens and EHR data. However, some participants identified specific concerns about biospecimens. These included the need for special care and respect for biospecimens due to enduring connections between the body and identity; the potential for unacceptable future research, specifically the prospect of human cloning; heightened privacy risks; and the potential for unjust corporate profiteering. Among those who distinguished biospecimens from EHR data, many supported separate consent processes and would limit their own participation to EHR data. CONCLUSION: Considering that the potential misuse of EHR data is as great as, if not greater than, for biospecimens, more research is needed to understand how attitudes differ between biospecimens and EHR data across diverse populations. Such research should explore mechanisms beyond consent that can address diverse values, perspectives, and misconceptions about sources of patient information to build trust in research relationships.

Use of genetic risks in pediatric organ transplantation listing decisions: A national survey.

There is a limited supply of organs for all those who need them for survival. Thus, careful decisions must be made about who is listed for transplant. Studies show that manifesting genetic disease can impact listing eligibility. What has not yet been studied is the impact genetic risks for future disease have on a patient's chance to be listed. Surveys were emailed to 163 pediatric liver, heart, and kidney transplant programs across the United States to elicit views and experiences of key clinicians regarding each program's use of genetic risks (ie, predispositions, positive predictive testing) in listing decisions. Response rate was 42%. Sixty-four percent of programs have required genetic testing for specific indications prior to listing decisions. Sixteen percent have required it without specific indications, suggesting that genetic testing may be used to screen candidates. Six percent have chosen not to list patients with secondary findings or family histories of genetic conditions. In hypothetical scenarios, programs consider cancer predispositions and adult-onset neurological conditions to be relative contraindications to listing (61%, 17%, and 8% depending on scenario), and some consider them absolute contraindications (5% and 3% depending on scenario). Only 3% of programs have formal policies for these scenarios, but all consult genetic specialists at least "sometimes" for results interpretation. Our study reveals that pediatric transplant programs are using future onset genetic risks in listing decisions. As genetic testing is increasingly adopted into pediatric medicine, further study is needed to prevent possible inappropriate use of genetic information from impacting listing eligibility.

Medical Contraindications to Transplant Listing in the USA: A Survey of Adult and Pediatric Heart, Kidney, Liver, and Lung Programs.

INTRODUCTION: Listing practices for solid organ transplantation are variable across programs in the USA. To better characterize this variability, we performed a survey of psychosocial listing criteria for pediatric and adult heart, lung, liver, and kidney programs in the USA. In this manuscript, we report our results regarding listing practices with respect to obesity, advanced age, and HIV seropositivity. METHODS: We performed an online, forced-choice survey of adult and pediatric heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant programs in the USA. RESULTS: Of 650 programs contacted, 343 submitted complete responses (response rate = 52.8%). Most programs have absolute contraindications to listing for BMI > 45 (adult: 67.5%; pediatric: 88.0%) and age > 80 (adult: 55.4%; pediatric: not relevant). Only 29.5% of adult programs and 25.7% of pediatric programs consider HIV seropositivity an absolute contraindication to listing. We found that there is variation in absolute contraindications to listing in adult programs among organ types for BMI > 45 (heart 89.8%, lung 92.3%, liver 49.1%, kidney 71.9%), age > 80 (heart 83.7%, lung 76.9%, liver 68.4%, kidney 29.2%), and HIV seropositivity (heart 30.6%, lung 59.0%, kidney 16.9%, liver 28.1%). CONCLUSIONS: We argue that variability in listing enhances access to transplantation for potential recipients who have the ability to pursue workup at different centers by allowing different programs to have different risk thresholds. Programs should remain independent in listing practices, but because these practices differ, we recommend transparency in listing policies and informing patients of reasons for listing denial and alternative opportunities to seek listing at another program.

Assessing genetic counselors' experiences with physician aid-in-dying and practice implications.

Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is now legalized in more than half a dozen states across the United States yet remains controversial among health care providers and the general public. Previous studies have described physicians' and nurses' experiences with and attitudes about PAD; however, there is no data about PAD in the context of genetic counseling. This study explores genetic counselors' experiences, understanding, training, and perspectives about PAD. Fifteen participants were recruited to complete semistructured telephone interviews. Five participants had received patient inquiries about PAD. Most participants (n = 10) did not feel prepared to discuss PAD with patients and felt that they did not have adequate knowledge to answer patient questions about the practice. Participants described how the unique training, skills, and experiences of genetic counselors could be beneficial for discussing PAD with patients, in comparison to other providers. All participants supported training for genetic counselors about PAD, with many suggesting integration with education about palliative care and end-of-life planning. This is the first study to investigate PAD in the context of genetic counseling. Genetic counselors have had patients ask questions about PAD, want education and access to resources about PAD, and believe they can provide important support and guidance to patients considering PAD in some genetic counseling contexts.

Treatability Statements in Serious Illness: The Gap Between What is Said and What is Heard.

Empirical work has shown that patients and physicians have markedly divergent understandings of treatability statements (e.g., "This is a treatable condition," "We have treatments for your loved one") in the context of serious illness. Patients often understand treatability statements as conveying good news for prognosis and quality of life. In contrast, physicians often do not intend treatability statements to convey improvement in prognosis or quality of life, but merely that a treatment is available. Similarly, patients often understand treatability statements as conveying encouragement to hope and pursue further treatment, though this may not be intended by physicians. This radical divergence in understandings may lead to severe miscommunication. This paper seeks to better understand this divergence through linguistic theory-in particular, H.P. Grice's notion of conversational implicature. This theoretical approach reveals three levels of meaning of treatability statements: (1) the literal meaning, (2) the physician's intended meaning, and (3) the patient's received meaning. The divergence between the physician's intended meaning and the patient's received meaning can be understood to arise from the lack of shared experience between physicians and patients, and the differing assumptions that each party makes about conversations. This divergence in meaning raises new and largely unidentified challenges to informed consent and shared decision making in the context of serious illness, which indicates a need for further empirical research in this area.

Anticipating uncertainty and irrevocable decisions: provider perspectives on implementing whole-genome sequencing in critically ill children with heart disease.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential impacts of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in the pediatric critical-care context, we examined how clinicians caring for critically ill children with congenital heart disease (CHD) anticipate and perceive the impact of WGS on their decision-making process and treatment recommendations. METHODS: We conducted semistructured in-person and telephone interviews of clinicians involved in the care of critically ill children with CHD at a high-volume pediatric heart center. We qualitatively analyzed the transcribed interviews. RESULTS: In total, 34 clinicians were interviewed. Three themes emerged: (i) uncertainty about the accuracy of WGS testing and adequacy of testing validation; (ii) the use of WGS to facilitate life-limiting decisions such as futility, rationing, and selective prenatal termination; and (iii) moral distress over using WGS with a lack of decision support. CONCLUSION: Despite uncertainty about WGS testing, the interviewed clinicians were using, and anticipated expanding the use of, WGS results to justify declarations of futility, withdrawal of care, and rationing in critically ill children with CHD. This situation is causing moral distress in providers who have to make high-stakes decisions involving WGS results, with only partial understanding of them. Decision support for clinicians, and discussion with families of the risks of using WGS for rationing or withdrawal, is needed.