J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2019;16:18. 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.18.

What should medical students know about artificial intelligence in medicine?

• Park SH
• Do KH
• Kim S
• Park JH
• Lim YS

• KMID: 2502181
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.18

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to affect various fields of medicine substantially and has the potential to improve many aspects of healthcare. However, AI has been creating much hype, too. In applying AI technology to patients, medical professionals should be able to resolve any anxiety, confusion, and questions that patients and the public may have. Also, they are responsible for ensuring that AI becomes a technology beneficial for patient care. These make the acquisition of sound knowledge and experience about AI a task of high importance for medical students. Preparing for AI does not merely mean learning information technology such as computer programming. One should acquire sufficient knowledge of basic and clinical medicines, data science, biostatistics, and evidence-based medicine. As a medical student, one should not passively accept stories related to AI in medicine in the media and on the Internet. Medical students should try to develop abilities to distinguish correct information from hype and spin and even capabilities to create thoroughly validated, trustworthy information for patients and the public.

Keyword

Artificial intelligence; Machine learning; Deep learning; Medical students

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Hierarchy of artificial intelligence-related terms. CAD and CDSS are the most common types of software tools in the application of AI in medicine. CAD, computer-aided detection/diagnosis; CDSS, clinical decision support system; CNN, convolutional neural network; RNN, recurrent neural network.

Reference

References

1. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019; 25:44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7.

2. Lee JG, Jun S, Cho YW, Lee H, Kim GB, Seo JB, Kim N. Deep learning in medical imaging: general overview. Korean J Radiol. 2017; 18:570–584. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.570.

3. Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E, Drozdzal M, Turcotte S, Pal CJ, Kadoury S, Tang A. Deep learning: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics. 2017; 37:2113–2131. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170077.

4. Kim CJ. Two years since the introduction of Watson for Oncology to Korea: diminishing hype and a growing list of dilemma. Hankook Ilbo [Internet]. 2018. Dec. 12. [cited 2019 Jun 14]. Available from: http://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/201812101071352371.

5. Ross C, Swetlitz I. IBM’s Watson supercomputer recommended ‘unsafe and incorrect’ cancer treatments, internal documents show. Stat News [Internet]. 2018. Jul. 25. [cited 2019 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/25/ibm-watson-recommended-unsafe-incorrect-treatments/.

6. Kim EY. Is the boiling hype about Watson for Oncology just cooling off? Cheongnyeon Uisa [Internet]. 2019. May. 17. [cited 2019 Jun 14]. Available from:http://www.docdocdoc.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1068354.

7. Mulcahy N. Big data bust: MD Anderson-Watson Project dies. Medscape [Internet]. 2017. Feb. 22. [cited 2019 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/876070.

8. Thomson I. IBM’s Watson Health wing left looking poorly after ‘massive’ layoffs. The Register [Internet]. 2018. May. 25. [cited 2019 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/25/ibms_watson_layoffs/.

9. Greaves F, Joshi I, Campbell M, Roberts S, Patel N, Powell J. What is an appropriate level of evidence for a digital health intervention? Lancet. 2019; 392:2665–2667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33129-5.

10. Maddox TM, Rumsfeld JS, Payne PRO. Questions for artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA. 2019; 321:31–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18932.

11. Park SH, Do KH, Choi JI, Sim JS, Yang DM, Eo H, Woo H, Lee JM, Jung SE, Oh JH. Principles for evaluating the clinical implementation of novel digital healthcare devices. J Korean Med Assoc. 2018; 61:765–775. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2018.61.12.765.

12. SFR-IA Group; CERF; French Radiology Community. Artificial intelligence and medical imaging 2018: French Radiology Community white paper. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018; 99:727–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2018.10.003.

13. Tang A, Tam R, Cadrin-Chênevert A, Guest W, Chong J, Barfett J, Chepelev L, Cairns R, Mitchell JR, Cicero MD, Poudrette MG, Jaremko JL, Reinhold C, Gallix B, Gray B, Geis R; Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Artificial Intelligence Working Group. Canadian Association of Radiologists white paper on artificial intelligence in radiology. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018; 69:120–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2018.02.002.

14. Parikh RB, Obermeyer Z, Navathe AS. Regulation of predictive analytics in medicine. Science. 2019; 363:810–812. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw0029.

15. Yu KH, Kohane IS. Framing the challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019; 28:238–241. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008551.

16. Park SH, Han K. Methodologic guide for evaluating clinical performance and effect of artificial intelligence technology for medical diagnosis and prediction. Radiology. 2018; 286:800–809. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017171920.

17. England JR, Cheng PM. Artificial intelligence for medical image analysis: a guide for authors and reviewers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 212:513–519. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20490.

18. Park SH. Artificial intelligence in medicine: beginner’s guide. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2018; 78:301–308. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2018.78.5.301.

19. Park SH, Kim YH, Lee JY, Yoo S, Kim CJ. Ethical challenges regarding artificial intelligence in medicine from the perspective of scientific editing and peer review. Sci Ed. 2019; Jun. 13. [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.164.

20. Zech JR, Badgeley MA, Liu M, Costa AB, Titano JJ, Oermann EK. Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2018; 15:e1002683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002683.

21. Nsoesie EO. Evaluating artificial intelligence applications in clinical settings. JAMA Netw Open. 2018; 1:e182658. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2658.

22. Li X, Zhang S, Zhang Q, Wei X, Pan Y, Zhao J, Xin X, Qin C, Wang X, Li J, Yang F, Zhao Y, Yang M, Wang Q, Zheng Z, Zheng X, Yang X, Whitlow CT, Gurcan MN, Zhang L, Wang X, Pasche BC, Gao M, Zhang W, Chen K. Diagnosis of thyroid cancer using deep convolutional neural network models applied to sonographic images: a retrospective, multicohort, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20:193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30762-9.

23. Ting DS, Cheung CY, Lim G, Tan GS, Quang ND, Gan A, Hamzah H, Garcia-Franco R, San Yeo IY, Lee SY, Wong EY, Sabanayagam C, Baskaran M, Ibrahim F, Tan NC, Finkelstein EA, Lamoureux EL, Wong IY, Bressler NM, Sivaprasad S, Varma R, Jonas JB, He MG, Cheng CY, Cheung GC, Aung T, Hsu W, Lee ML, Wong TY. Development and validation of a deep learning system for diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases using retinal images from multiethnic populations with diabetes. JAMA. 2017; 318:2211–2223. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.18152.

24. Kim DW, Jang HY, Kim KW, Shin Y, Park SH. Design characteristics of studies reporting the performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for diagnostic analysis of medical images: results from recently published papers. Korean J Radiol. 2019; 20:405–410. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0025.

25. AI diagnostics need attention. Nature. 2018; 555:285. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03067-x.

26. The Lancet. Is digital medicine different? Lancet. 2018; 392:95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31562-9.

27. Slabodkin G. UPMC cuts hospital readmission rates with ML algorithm. Health Data Management [Internet]. 2019. Mar. 4. [cited 2019 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/upmc-cuts-hospital-readmission-rates-with-ml-algorithm.

28. Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin”. Radiology. 2013; 267:581–588. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120527.