We know very little about how physiotherapy clinicians think about the impact of AI-based systems on clinical practice, or how these systems will influence human relationships and professional practice. As a result, we cannot prepare for the changes that are coming to clinical practice and physiotherapy education. The aim of this study is to explore how physiotherapists currently think about the potential impact of artificial intelligence on their own clinical practice.
Earlier this year I registered a project that aims to develop a better understanding of how physiotherapists think about the impact of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. Now I’m ready to move forward with the first phase of the study, which is an online survey of physiotherapy clinicians’ perceptions of AI in professional practice. The second phase will be a series of follow up interviews with survey participants who’d like to discuss the topic in more depth.
I’d like to get as many participants as possible (obviously) so would really appreciate it if you could share the link to the survey with anyone you think might be interested. There are 12 open-ended questions split into 3 sections, with a fourth section for demographic information. Participants don’t need a detailed understanding of artificial intelligence and (I think) I’ve provided enough context to make the questionnaire simple for anyone to complete in about 20 minutes.
I discussed something related to this earlier this year (the algorithmic de-skilling of clinicians) and thought that this short presentation added something extra. It’s not just that AI and machine learning have the potential to create scenarios in which qualified clinical experts become de-skilled over time; they will also impact on our ability to teach and learn those skills in the first place.
We’re used to the idea of a novice working closely with a more experienced clinician, and learning from them through observation and questioning (how closely this maps onto reality is a different story). When the tasks usually performed by more experienced clinicians are outsourced to algorithms, who does the novice learn from?
Will clinical supervision consist of talking undergraduate students through the algorithmic decision-making process? Discussing how probabilistic outputs were determined from limited datasets? How to interpret confidence levels of clinical decision-support systems? When clinical decisions are made by AI-based systems in the real-world of clinical practice, what will we lose in the undergraduate clinical programme, and how do we plan on addressing it?
This is an interesting post making the point that medical language – especially when written in clinical notes – is not the same as other, more typical, human languages. This is important to recognise in the context of training natural language processing (NLP) models in the healthcare context because medical languages have different vocabularies, grammatical structure, and semantics. Trying to get an NLP system to “understand”* medical language is a fundamentally different problem to understanding other languages.
The lessons from this article are slightly technical (although not difficult to follow) and do a good job highlighting why NLP in health systems is seeing slower progress than the NLP running on your phone. You may think that, since Google Translate does quite well translating between English and Spanish, for example, it should also be able to translate between English and “Radiography”. This article explains why that problem is not only harder than “normal” translation, but also different.
* Note: I’m saying “understand” while recognising that current NLP systems understand nothing. They’re statistically modelling the likelihood that certain words follow certain other words and have no concept of what those words mean.
The scientists placed sensors on people’s fingers to record pulse amplitude while they were in a driving simulator, as a measure of arousal. An algorithm used those recordings to learn to predict an average person’s pulse amplitude at each moment on the course. It then used those “fear” signals as a guide while learning to drive through the virtual world: If a human would be scared here, it might muse, “I’m doing something wrong.”
This makes intuitive sense; algorithms have no idea what humans fear, nor even what “fear” is. This project takes human flight-or-flight physiological data and uses it to train an autonomous driving algorithm to get a sense of what we feel when we face anxiety-producing situations. The system can use those fear signals to more quickly identify when they’re moving into dangerous territory, adjusting their behaviour to be less risky.
There are interesting potential use cases in healthcare; surgery, for example. When training algorithms on simulations or games, errors do not lead to high-stakes consequences. However, when trusting machines to make potentially life-threatening choices, we’d like them to be more circumspect and risk-averse. But one of the challenges is to get them to identify situations in which a human’s perception of risk is included in the decision-making process. Learning that cutting this artery will likely lead to death can be done by cutting that artery hundreds of times (in simulations) and noting the outcome. This gives us a process whereby the algorithm “senses” a fear response in a surgeon before cutting the artery, and possibly sending a signal indicating that they should slow down and call for help. This could help when deciding whether or not surgical machines should have greater autonomy when performing surgery because we could have mroe confidence that they’d ask for human intervention at appropriate times.
There are a number of overlapping reasons it is difficult to build large health data sets that are representative of our population. One is that the data is spread out across thousands of doctors’ offices and hospitals, many of which use different electronic health record systems. It’s hard to extract records from these systems, and that’s not an accident: The companies don’t want to make it easy for their customers to move their data to a competing provider.
The author goes on to talk about problems with HIPAA, which he suggests are the bigger obstacle to the large-scale data analysis that is necessary for machine learning. While I agree that HIPAA makes it difficult for companies to enable the sharing of health data while also complying with regulations, I don’t think it’s the main problem.
The requirements around HIPAA could change overnight through legislation. This will be challenging politically and legally but it’s not hard to see how it could happen. There are well-understood frameworks through which legal frameworks can be changed and even though it’s a difficult process, it’s not conceptually difficult to understand. But the ability to share data between EHRs will, I think, be a much bigger hurdle to overcome. There are incentives for the government to review the regulations around patient data in order to push AI in healthcare initiatives; I can’t think of many incentives for companies to make it easier to port patient data between platforms. Unless companies responsible for storing patient data make data portability and exchange a priority, I think it’s going to be very difficult to create large patient data sets.
I recently received ethics clearance to begin an explorative study looking at how physiotherapists think about the introduction of machine learning into clinical practice. The study will use an international survey and a series of interviews to gather data on clinicians’ perspectives on questions like the following:
What aspects of clinical practice are vulnerable to automation?
How do we think about trust when it comes to AI-based clinical decision support?
What is the role of the clinician in guiding the development of AI in clinical practice?
I’m busy finalising the questionnaire and hope to have the survey up and running in a couple of weeks, with more focused interviews following. If these kinds of questions interest you and you’d like to have a say in answering them, keep an eye out for a call to respond.
Here is the study abstract (contact me if you’d like more detailed information):
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science that aims to embed intelligent behaviour into software in order to achieve certain objectives. Increasingly, AI is being integrated into a variety of healthcare and clinical applications and there is significant research and funding being directed at improving the performance of these systems in clinical practice. Clinicians in the near future will find themselves working with information networks on a scale well beyond the capacity of human beings to grasp, thereby necessitating the use of intelligent machines to analyse and interpret the complex interactions of data, patients and clinical decision-making.
Aim: In order to ensure that we successfully integrate machine intelligence with the essential human characteristics of empathic, caring and creative clinical practice, we need to first understand how clinicians perceive the introduction of AI into professional practice.
Methods: This study will make use of an explorative design to gather qualitative data via an online survey and a series of interviews with physiotherapy clinicians from around the world. The survey questionnaire will be self-administered and piloted for validity and ambiguity, and the interview guide informed by the study aim. The population for both survey and interviews will consist of physiotherapy clinicians from around the world. This is an explorative study with a convenient sample, therefore no a priori sample size will be calculated.
It’s a nice coincidence that my article on machine learning for clinicians has been published at around the same time that my poster on a similar topic was presented at WCPT. I’m quite happy with this paper and think it offers a useful overview of the topic of machine learning that is specific to clinical practice and which will help clinicians understand what is at times a confusing topic. The mainstream media (and, to be honest, many academics) conflate a wide variety of terms when they talk about artificial intelligence, and this paper goes some way towards providing some background information for anyone interested in how this will affect clinical work. You can download the preprint here.
The technology at the heart of the most innovative progress in health care artificial intelligence (AI) is in a sub-domain called machine learning (ML), which describes the use of software algorithms to identify patterns in very large data sets. ML has driven much of the progress of health care AI over the past five years, demonstrating impressive results in clinical decision support, patient monitoring and coaching, surgical assistance, patient care, and systems management. Clinicians in the near future will find themselves working with information networks on a scale well beyond the capacity of human beings to grasp, thereby necessitating the use of intelligent machines to analyze and interpret the complex interactions between data, patients, and clinical decision-makers. However, as this technology becomes more powerful it also becomes less transparent, and algorithmic decisions are therefore increasingly opaque. This is problematic because computers will increasingly be asked for answers to clinical questions that have no single right answer, are open-ended, subjective, and value-laden. As ML continues to make important contributions in a variety of clinical domains, clinicians will need to have a deeper understanding of the design, implementation, and evaluation of ML to ensure that current health care is not overly influenced by the agenda of technology entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. The aim of this article is to provide a non-technical introduction to the concept of ML in the context of health care, the challenges that arise, and the resulting implications for clinicians.
It’s a bit content-heavy and not as graphic-y as I’d like but c’est la vie.
I’m quite proud of what I think is a novel innovation in poster design; the addition of the tl;dr column before the findings. In other words, if you only have 30 seconds to look at the poster then that’s the bit you want to focus on. Related to this, I’ve also moved the Background, Methods and Conclusion sections to the bottom and made them smaller so as to emphasise the Findings, which are placed first.
Here is the tl;dr version. Or, my poster in 8 tweets:
Aim: The aim of the study was to identify the ways in which machine learning algorithms are being used across the health sector that may impact physiotherapy practice.
Image recognition: Millions of patient scans can be analysed in seconds, and diagnoses made by non-specialists via mobile phones, with lower rates of error than humans are capable of.
Video analysis: Constant video surveillance of patients will alert providers of those at risk of falling, as well as make early diagnoses of movement-related disorders.
Natural language processing: Unstructured, freeform clinical notes will be converted into structured data that can be analysed, leading to increased accuracy in data capture and diagnosis.
Robotics: Autonomous robots will assist with physical tasks like patient transportation and possibly even take over manual therapy tasks from clinicians.
Expert systems: Knowing things about conditions will become less important than knowing when to trust outputs from clinical decision support systems.
Prediction: Clinicians should learn how to integrate the predictions of machine learning algorithms with human values in order to make better clinical decisions in partnership with AI-based systems.
Conclusion: The challenge we face is to bring together computers and humans in ways that enhance human well-being, augment human ability and expand human capacity.
Reference list (download this list as a Word document)
Yang, C. C., & Veltri, P. (2015). Intelligent healthcare informatics in big data era. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 65(2), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2015.08.002
Qayyum, A., Anwar, S. M., Awais, M., & Majid, M. (2017). Medical image retrieval using deep convolutional neural network. Neurocomputing, 266, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.05.025
Li, Z., Zhang, X., Müller, H., & Zhang, S. (2018). Large-scale retrieval for medical image analytics: A comprehensive review. Medical Image Analysis, 43, 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.09.007
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056
Pratt, H., Coenen, F., Broadbent, D. M., Harding, S. P., & Zheng, Y. (2016). Convolutional Neural Networks for Diabetic Retinopathy. Procedia Computer Science, 90, 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.014
Ramzan, M., Shafique, A., Kashif, M., & Umer, M. (2017). Gait Identification using Neural Network. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2017.080909
Kidziński, Ł., Delp, S., & Schwartz, M. (2019). Automatic real-time gait event detection in children using deep neural networks. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0211466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211466
Horst, F., Lapuschkin, S., Samek, W., Müller, K.-R., & Schöllhorn, W. I. (2019). Explaining the Unique Nature of Individual Gait Patterns with Deep Learning. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 2391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38748-8
Cai, T., Giannopoulos, A. A., Yu, S., Kelil, T., Ripley, B., Kumamaru, K. K., … Mitsouras, D. (2016). Natural Language Processing Technologies in Radiology Research and Clinical Applications. RadioGraphics, 36(1), 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150080
Jackson, R. G., Patel, R., Jayatilleke, N., Kolliakou, A., Ball, M., Gorrell, G., … Stewart, R. (2017). Natural language processing to extract symptoms of severe mental illness from clinical text: The Clinical Record Interactive Search Comprehensive Data Extraction (CRIS-CODE) project. BMJ Open, 7(1), e012012. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012012
Kreimeyer, K., Foster, M., Pandey, A., Arya, N., Halford, G., Jones, S. F., … Botsis, T. (2017). Natural language processing systems for capturing and standardizing unstructured clinical information: A systematic review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 73, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.07.012
Montenegro, J. L. Z., Da Costa, C. A., & Righi, R. da R. (2019). Survey of Conversational Agents in Health. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.054
Carrell, D. S., Schoen, R. E., Leffler, D. A., Morris, M., Rose, S., Baer, A., … Mehrotra, A. (2017). Challenges in adapting existing clinical natural language processing systems to multiple, diverse health care settings. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(5), 986–991. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx039
Oña, E. D., Cano-de la Cuerda, R., Sánchez-Herrera, P., Balaguer, C., & Jardón, A. (2018). A Review of Robotics in Neurorehabilitation: Towards an Automated Process for Upper Limb. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2018, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9758939
Krebs, H. I., & Volpe, B. T. (2015). Robotics: A Rehabilitation Modality. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports, 3(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-015-0101-6
Leng, M., Liu, P., Zhang, P., Hu, M., Zhou, H., Li, G., … Chen, L. (2019). Pet robot intervention for people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychiatry Research, 271, 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.032
Jennifer Piatt, P., Shinichi Nagata, M. S., Selma Šabanović, P., Wan-Ling Cheng, M. S., Casey Bennett, P., Hee Rin Lee, M. S., & David Hakken, P. (2017). Companionship with a robot? Therapists’ perspectives on socially assistive robots as therapeutic interventions in community mental health for older adults. American Journal of Recreation Therapy, 15(4), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.5055/ajrt.2016.0117
Troccaz, J., Dagnino, G., & Yang, G.-Z. (2019). Frontiers of Medical Robotics: From Concept to Systems to Clinical Translation. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052502
Riek, L. D. (2017). Healthcare Robotics. ArXiv:1704.03931 [Cs]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03931
Kappassov, Z., Corrales, J.-A., & Perdereau, V. (2015). Tactile sensing in dexterous robot hands — Review. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 74, 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.07.015
Choi, C., Schwarting, W., DelPreto, J., & Rus, D. (2018). Learning Object Grasping for Soft Robot Hands. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3), 2370–2377. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2810544
Shortliffe, E., & Sepulveda, M. (2018). Clinical Decision Support in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of the American Medical Association.
Attema, T., Mancini, E., Spini, G., Abspoel, M., de Gier, J., Fehr, S., … Sloot, P. M. A. (n.d.). A new approach to privacy-preserving clinical decision support systems. 15.
Castaneda, C., Nalley, K., Mannion, C., Bhattacharyya, P., Blake, P., Pecora, A., … Suh, K. S. (2015). Clinical decision support systems for improving diagnostic accuracy and achieving precision medicine. Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13336-015-0019-3
Gianfrancesco, M. A., Tamang, S., Yazdany, J., & Schmajuk, G. (2018). Potential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(11), 1544. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763
Kliegr, T., Bahník, Š., & Fürnkranz, J. (2018). A review of possible effects of cognitive biases on interpretation of rule-based machine learning models. ArXiv:1804.02969 [Cs, Stat]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02969
Weng, S. F., Reps, J., Kai, J., Garibaldi, J. M., & Qureshi, N. (2017). Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0174944. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174944
Suresh, H., Hunt, N., Johnson, A., Celi, L. A., Szolovits, P., & Ghassemi, M. (2017). Clinical Intervention Prediction and Understanding using Deep Networks. ArXiv:1705.08498 [Cs]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08498
Vayena, E., Blasimme, A., & Cohen, I. G. (2018). Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges. PLOS Medicine, 15(11), e1002689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689
Verghese, A., Shah, N. H., & Harrington, R. A. (2018). What This Computer Needs Is a Physician: Humanism and Artificial Intelligence. JAMA, 319(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19198
After each round, participants filled out a questionnaire rating the robot’s competence, their own competence and the robot’s likability. The researchers found that as the robot performed better, people rated its competence higher, its likability lower and their own competence lower.
This is worth noting since it seems increasingly likely that we’ll soon be working, not only with more competent robots but also with more competent software. There are already concerns around how clinicians will respond to the recommendations of clinical decision-support systems, especially when those systems make suggestions that are at odds with the clinician’s intuition.
Paradoxically, the effect may be even worse with expert clinicians who may not always be able to explain their decision-making. Novices, who use more analytical frameworks (or even basic algorithms like, IF this, THEN that) may find it easier to modify their decisions because their reasoning is more “visible” (System 2). Experts, who rely more on subconscious pattern recognition (System 1), may be less able to identify where in their reasoning process they were victim to confounders like confirmation or availability bia, and so less likely to modify their decisions.
It seems really clear that we need to start thinking about how we’re going to prepare current and future clinicians for the arrival of intelligent agents in the clinical context. If we start disregarding the recommendations of clinical decision support systems, not because they produce errors in judgement but because we simply don’t like them, then there’s a strong case to be made that it is the human that we cannot trust.
Contrast this with automation bias, which is the tendency to give more credence to decisions made by machines because of a misplaced notion that algorithms are simply more trustworthy than people.
People who have lost the ability to speak after a stroke or disease can use their eyes or make other small movements to control a cursor or select on-screen letters. (Cosmologist Stephen Hawking tensed his cheek to trigger a switch mounted on his glasses.) But if a brain-computer interface could re-create their speech directly, they might regain much more: control over tone and inflection, for example, or the ability to interject in a fast-moving conversation.
To be clear, this research doesn’t describe the artificial recreation of imagined speech i.e. the internal speech that each of us hears as part of the personal monologue of our own subjective experiences. Rather, it maps the electrical activity in the areas of the brain that are responsible for the articulation of speech as the participant reads or listens to sounds being played back to them. Nonetheless, it’s an important step for patients who have suffered damage to those areas of the brain responsible for speaking.
I also couldn’t help but get excited about the following; when electrical signals from the brain are converted into digital information (as they would have to be here, in order to do the analysis and speech synthesis) then why not also transmit that digital information over wifi? If it’s possible for me to understand you “thinking about saying words”, instead of using your muscles of articulation to actually say them, how long will it be before you can send those words to me over a wireless connection?