◐ Shell
reader mode source ↗
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from AI in healthcare)

X-ray of a hand, with automatic calculation of bone age by a computer software

Artificial intelligence in healthcare refers to the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to medical and healthcare data in areas including disease diagnosis, treatment planning,[1], patient monitoring, drug development,[2] and clinical decision support systems.[3][4][5]

The use of AI in healthcare has also raised ethical, technical, and regulatory concerns, including related to issues such as data privacy, automation of jobs, and amplifying already existing algorithmic bias.[6] Studies have also examined concerns among patients, health professionals, and the public about trust and empathy in care involving AI.[7]

Applications in healthcare systems

[edit]

Disease diagnosis

[edit]

Accurate and early diagnosis of diseases is still a challenge in healthcare. Recognizing medical conditions and their symptoms is a complex problem. AI can assist clinicians with data processing capabilities to save time and improve accuracy.[8][9] Through the use of machine learning, artificial intelligence can substantially aid doctors in patient diagnosis through the analysis of mass electronic health records (EHRs).[10] AI can help early prediction, for example, of Alzheimer's disease and dementias, by looking through large numbers of similar cases and possible treatments.[11]

In 2023 a study reported higher satisfaction rates with ChatGPT-generated responses compared with those from physicians for medical questions posted on Reddit's r/AskDocs.[12] Evaluators preferred ChatGPT's responses to physician responses in 78.6% of 585 evaluations, noting better quality and empathy. The authors noted that these were isolated questions taken from an online forum, not in the context of an established patient-physician relationship.[12] Moreover, responses were not graded on the accuracy of medical information, and some have argued that the experiment was not properly blinded, with the evaluators being coauthors of the study.[13][14][15]

Large healthcare-related data warehouses of sometimes hundreds of millions of patients have been used as training data for AI models.[16]

A 2025 meta-analysis in PLOS One found that the use of AI algorithms for detecting tooth decay was clinically justified.[17]

Electronic health records

[edit]

AI algorithms have been created to evaluate individual patients' electronic health records, and to predict risks for diseases based on records and family histories.[18] One general algorithm is a rule-based system that makes decisions similarly to how humans use flow charts.[19] This system takes in large amounts of data and creates a set of rules that connect specific observations to concluded diagnoses.[19] Thus, the algorithm can take in a new patient's data and try to predict the likelihood that they will have a certain condition or disease.[19] Since the algorithms can evaluate a patient's information based on collective data, they can find any outstanding issues to bring to a physician's attention and save time.[18] One study conducted by the Centerstone research institute found that predictive modeling of EHR data has achieved 70–72% accuracy in predicting individualized treatment response.[20] These methods are helpful due to the fact that the amount of online health records doubles every five years.[18] Physicians do not have the bandwidth to process all this data manually, and AI can leverage this data to assist physicians in treating their patients.[18]

Clinical documentation

[edit]

The use of generative artificial intelligence tools (a subset of AI) is growing as a support for clinical documentation, primarily for transcribing consultations and drafting medical notes. Early studies have shown that such tools, may assist clinicians with documentation tasks, reducing administrative burdens, which are known drivers of burnout.[21][22][23] These tools may also improve accessibility for patients [24][25] synthesizing complex data, and writing responses in a desired conversational style or literacy level[26][27] ultimately improving the overall efficiency of healthcare services.[28][29]

AlphaFold and drug discovery

[edit]

AlphaFold has the ability to predict protein structures based on the constituent amino acid sequence, expected to have benefits in the life sciences--accelerating drug discovery and enabling better understanding of diseases.[30] Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan called the result "a stunning advance on the protein folding problem", adding that "It has occurred decades before many people in the field would have predicted. It will be exciting to see the many ways in which it will fundamentally change biological research." In 2023, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences[31] as well as the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research for their management of the AlphaFold project.[32] Hassabis and Jumper proceeded to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024 for their work on "protein structure prediction" with David Baker of the University of Washington.[33][34]

Drug interactions

[edit]

Improvements in natural language processing led to the development of algorithms to identify drug-drug interactions in medical literature.[35][36][37][38] Drug-drug interactions pose a threat to those taking multiple medications simultaneously, and the danger increases with the number of medications being taken.[39] To address the difficulty of tracking all known or suspected drug-drug interactions, machine learning algorithms have been created to extract information on interacting drugs and their possible effects from medical literature. Efforts were consolidated in 2013 in the DDIExtraction Challenge, in which a team of researchers at Carlos III University assembled a corpus of literature on drug-drug interactions to form a standardized test for such algorithms.[40] Competitors were tested on their ability to accurately determine, from the text, which drugs were shown to interact and what the characteristics of their interactions were.[41] Researchers continue to use this corpus to standardize the measurement of the effectiveness of their algorithms.[35][36][38]

Other algorithms identify drug-drug interactions from patterns in user-generated content, especially electronic health records and/or adverse event reports.[36][37] Organizations such as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase allow doctors to submit reports of possible negative reactions to medications. Deep learning algorithms have been developed to parse these reports and detect patterns that imply drug-drug interactions.[42]

Telehealth

[edit]

Telehealth is the treatment of patients remotely. Pivovarov and Elhada (2015) propose using wearable devices to allow for constant monitoring of a patient and the ability to notice changes via AI that may be less distinguishable by humans.[43]

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing AI chatbots with human healthcare professionals in text-based consultations found that in a large majority of studies participants rated chatbot responses as more empathic than those from clinicians.[44]

AI has the potential to streamline care coordination and reduce the workload. AI algorithms can automate administrative tasks, prioritize patient needs, and facilitate seamless communication in a healthcare team.[45]

Applications in treatment

[edit]

Cardiovascular

[edit]

Artificial intelligence algorithms have shown promising results in accurately diagnosing and risk stratifying patients with concern for coronary artery disease, showing potential as an initial triage tool.[46][47] Other algorithms have been used in predicting patient mortality, medication effects, and adverse events following treatment for acute coronary syndrome.[46] Wearables, smartphones, and internet-based technologies have also shown the ability to monitor patients' cardiac data points, expanding the amount of data and the various settings AI models can use and potentially enabling earlier detection of cardiac events occurring outside of the hospital.[48] A study in 2019 found that AI can be used to predict heart attack with up to 90% accuracy.[49] Another growing area of research is the utility of AI in classifying heart sounds and diagnosing valvular disease.[50] Challenges of AI in cardiovascular medicine have included the limited data available to train machine learning models, such as limited data on social determinants of health as they pertain to cardiovascular disease.[51]

A key limitation in early studies evaluating AI were omissions of data comparing algorithmic performance to humans. Examples of studies which assess AI performance relative to physicians includes how AI is non-inferior to humans in interpretation of cardiac echocardiograms[52] and that AI can diagnose heart attack better than human physicians in the emergency setting, reducing both low-value testing and missed diagnoses.[53]

Dermatology

[edit]

Applications of artificial intelligence in dermatology include skin cancer detection, the assessment of skin conditions, and aesthetic applications.[54]

AI models have been developed and evaluated for detecting and classifying skin cancer in clinical and dermoscopic images.[55] A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis found that AI models performed comparably to expert dermatologists in skin cancer classification, but called for further evaluation in real-world clinical settings.[56] Another review found that clinicians had higher pooled sensitivity and specificity when using AI assistance, although most included studies were conducted in experimental settings.[57] Limited dataset diversity, including the underrepresentation of darker skin tones, may also reduce generalizability across populations.[58][59]

Deep learning has also shown potential for diagnosing and monitoring non-cancerous skin conditions, including acne, rosacea, eczema, and psoriasis, although its effectiveness in clinical practice remains uncertain.[60] One algorithm, developed to identify rosacea from facial images, achieved accuracy rates of 88–90% in initial testing, though researchers noted limitations in identifying symptom types and affected areas in detail.[61]

In aesthetic dermatology, AI has been applied to skin assessment, treatment planning, and the evaluation of cosmetic outcomes.[62][63] AI has also been used to diagnose inflammatory skin conditions such as rosacea, where an AI tool was reported to achieve accuracy rates of approximately 88–90% in identifying the disorder.[64]

It has also been suggested that AI could be used to automatically evaluate the outcome of maxillo-facial surgery or cleft palate therapy in regard to facial attractiveness or age appearance.[65][66]

Gastroenterology

[edit]

AI can play a role in various facets of the field of gastroenterology. Endoscopic exams such as esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and colonoscopies rely on rapid detection of abnormal tissue. By enhancing these endoscopic procedures with AI, clinicians can more rapidly identify diseases, determine their severity, and visualize blind spots. Early trials in using AI detection systems of early stomach cancer have shown sensitivity close to expert endoscopists.[67]

AI can assist doctors treating ulcerative colitis in detecting the microscopic activity of the disease in people and predicting when flare-ups will happen. For example, an AI-powered tool was developed to analyse digitised bowel samples (biopsies). The tool was able to distinguish with 80% accuracy between samples that show remission of colitis and those with active disease. It also predicted the risk of a flare-up happening with the same accuracy. These rates of successfully using microscopic disease activity to predict disease flare are similar to the accuracy of pathologists.[68][69]

Infectious diseases

[edit]

AI has shown potential in both the laboratory and clinical spheres of infectious disease medicine.[70] There were only a few examples of AI being used directly in clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.[71]

Other applications of AI around infectious diseases include support-vector machines identifying antimicrobial resistance, machine learning analysis of blood smears to detect malaria, and improved point-of-care testing of Lyme disease based on antigen detection. Additionally, AI has been investigated for improving diagnosis of meningitis, sepsis, and tuberculosis, as well as predicting treatment complications in hepatitis B and hepatitis C patients.[70]

Musculoskeletal

[edit]

AI has been used to identify causes of knee pain that doctors miss, that disproportionately affect Black patients.[72] Underserved populations experience higher levels of pain. These disparities persist even after controlling for the objective severity of diseases like osteoarthritis, as graded by human physicians using medical images, raising the possibility that underserved patients' pain stems from factors external to the knee, such as stress. Researchers have conducted a study using a machine-learning algorithm to show that standard radiographic measures of severity overlook objective but undiagnosed features that disproportionately affect diagnosis and management of underserved populations with knee pain. They proposed that new algorithmic measure ALG-P could potentially enable expanded access to treatments for underserved patients.[73]

Neurology

[edit]

The use of AI technologies has been explored for use in the diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). For diagnostic purposes, machine learning models have been developed that rely on structural MRI inputs. The input datasets for these models are drawn from databases such as the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Researchers have developed models that rely on with the aim of improving early diagnostic accuracy. There have been efforts to develop machine learning models into forecasting tools that can predict the prognosis of patients with AD. Forecasting patient outcomes through generative models has been proposed by researchers as a means of synthesizing training and validation sets.

Oncology

[edit]

AI has been explored for use in cancer diagnosis, risk stratification, molecular characterization of tumors, and cancer drug discovery.[78] A particular challenge in oncologic care that AI is being developed to address is the ability to accurately predict which treatment protocols will be best suited for each patient based on their individual genetic, molecular, and tumor-based characteristics.[79] AI has been trialed in cancer diagnostics with the reading of imaging studies and pathology slides.[80]

In January 2020, Google DeepMind announced an algorithm capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer detection in screening scans.[81][82] A number of researchers, including Trevor Hastie, Joelle Pineau, and Robert Tibshirani among others, published a reply claiming that DeepMind's research publication in Nature lacked key details on methodology and code, "effectively undermin[ing] its scientific value" and making it impossible for the scientific community to confirm the work.[83] In the MIT Technology Review, author Benjamin Haibe-Kains characterized DeepMind's work as "an advertisement" having little to do with science.[84]

In July 2020, it was reported that an AI algorithm developed by the University of Pittsburgh achieves the highest accuracy to date in identifying prostate cancer, with 98% sensitivity and 97% specificity.[85][86] In 2023 a study reported the use of AI for CT-based radiomics classification at grading the aggressiveness of retroperitoneal sarcoma with 82% accuracy compared with 44% for lab analysis of biopsies.[87][88]

Ophthalmology

[edit]

Artificial intelligence-enhanced technology is being used as an aid in the screening of eye disease and prevention of blindness.[89] In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the marketing of the first medical device to diagnose a specific type of eye disease, diabetic retinopathy using an artificial intelligence algorithm.[90] Moreover, AI technology may be used to further improve "diagnosis rates" because of the potential to decrease detection time.[91]

Pathology

[edit]
Ki67 stain calculation by the open-source software QuPath in a pure seminoma, which gives a measure of the proliferation rate of the tumor. The colors represent the intensity of expression: blue-no expression, yellow-low, orange-moderate, and red-high expression.[92]

For many diseases, pathological analysis of cells and tissues is considered to be the gold standard of disease diagnosis. Methods of digital pathology allow microscopy slides to be scanned and digitally analyzed. AI-assisted pathology tools have been developed to assist with the diagnosis of a number of diseases, including breast cancer, hepatitis B, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer. AI has also been used to predict genetic mutations and prognosticate disease outcomes.[67] AI is well-suited for use in low-complexity pathological analysis of large-scale screening samples, such as colorectal or breast cancer screening, thus lessening the burden on pathologists and allowing for faster turnaround of sample analysis.[93] Several deep learning and artificial neural network models have shown accuracy similar to that of human pathologists,[93] and a study of deep learning assistance in diagnosing metastatic breast cancer in lymph nodes showed that the accuracy of humans with the assistance of a deep learning program was higher than either the humans alone or the AI program alone.[94] Additionally, implementation of digital pathology is predicted to save over $12 million for a university center over the course of five years,[95] though savings attributed to AI specifically have not yet been widely researched. The use of augmented and virtual reality could prove to be a stepping stone to wider implementation of AI-assisted pathology, as they can highlight areas of concern on a pathology sample and present them in real-time to a pathologist for more efficient review.[93] AI also has the potential to identify histological findings at levels beyond what the human eye can see,[93] and has shown the ability to use genotypic and phenotypic data to more accurately detect the tumor of origin for metastatic cancer.[96] One of the major current barriers to widespread implementation of AI-assisted pathology tools is the lack of prospective, randomized, multi-center controlled trials in determining the true clinical utility of AI for pathologists and patients, highlighting a current area of need in AI and healthcare research.[93]

Pharmacy

[edit]

In pharmacy, AI has been proposed as a way to generate personalized treatment plans.[97][98]

Primary care

[edit]

Primary care has become one key development area for AI technologies.[99][100] AI in primary care has been used for supporting decision making, predictive modeling, and business analytics.[101] There are only a few examples of AI decision support systems that were prospectively assessed on clinical efficacy when used in practice by physicians. But there are cases where the use of these systems yielded a positive effect on treatment choice by physicians.[102]

As of 2022 in relation to elder care, AI robots had been helpful in guiding older residents living in assisted living with entertainment and company. These bots are allowing staff in the home to have more one-on-one time with each resident, but the bots are also programmed with more ability in what they are able to do; such as knowing different languages and different types of care depending on the patient's conditions. The bot is an AI machine, which means it goes through the same training as any other machine - using algorithms to parse the given data, learn from it and predict the outcome in relation to what situation is at hand.[103]

Psychiatry and psychology

[edit]

People have used AI chatbots such as ChatGPT as a replacement for therapy when such therapy is unaffordable or inaccessible. Chatbots used for this purpose lack boundaries and are unregulated. This can lead to a risk of unhealthy attachment from users and coincides with chatbot psychosis. AI chatbots, including those used as a substitute for therapy, have provided harmful advice which has led to death. This has led to some government and institutional efforts to regulate or outlaw chatbot therapy.[104][105][106][107][108]

Some companies have specifically marketed chatbots for this use.[109][110][111]

Chatbots have been studied as a way to treat anxiety and depression.[112] Although AI applications have been developed and proposed for screening for suicidal ideation, legal and privacy issues and public opposition has limited implementation.[113][114] Small training datasets contain bias that is inherited by the models, and compromises the generalizability and stability of these models. Such models may also have the potential to be discriminatory against minority groups that are underrepresented in samples.[115]

In 2023, US-based National Eating Disorders Association replaced its human helpline staff with a chatbot but had to take it offline after users reported receiving harmful advice from it.[116][117][118]

The potential for AI to assist with triage and interpretation of radiographs is particularly significant.[119]

AI is being studied within the field of radiology in settings where demand for human expertise exceeds supply, or where data is too complex to be efficiently interpreted by human readers. Several deep learning models have shown the capability to be roughly as accurate as healthcare professionals in identifying diseases through medical imaging, though few of the studies reporting these findings have been externally validated.[121] AI can also provide non-interpretive benefit to radiologists, such as reducing noise in images, creating high-quality images from lower doses of radiation, enhancing MR image quality,[122] and automatically assessing image quality.[123] Further research investigating the use of AI in nuclear medicine focuses on image reconstruction, anatomical landmarking, and the enablement of lower doses in imaging studies.[124] The analysis of images for supervised AI applications in radiology encompasses two primary techniques at present: (1) convolutional neural network-based analysis; and (2) utilization of radiomics.

AI is also used in breast imaging for analyzing screening mammograms and can participate in improving breast cancer detection rate[125] as well as reducing radiologist's reading workload.

As of 2025, 77% (967 out of 1247) of all FDA-approved AI-enabled medical devices are in radiology.[126]

Industry

[edit]

Large companies

[edit]

The following are examples of large companies that are contributing to AI algorithms for use in healthcare:

  • Intel's venture capital arm Intel Capital invested in 2016 in the startup Lumiata, which uses AI to identify at-risk patients and develop care options.[127]
  • Siemens Healthineers applies AI in imaging and diagnostics, including algorithms to reconstruct CT images and guide ultrasound procedures. It also uses AI to support treatment planning such as radiation therapy for cancer, improve point-of-care diagnostics, and automate lab workflows.[128]
  • Microsoft's Hanover project, in partnership with Oregon Health & Science University's Knight Cancer Institute, analyzes medical research to predict the most effective cancer drug treatment options for patients. Other projects include medical image analysis of tumor progression and the development of programmable cells.[129]
  • Mayo Clinic, in partnership with Microsoft, is designing a model centered around healthcare, aimed at handling clinical reasoning tasks, supporting earlier diagnoses and personalized treatment decisions.[130]
  • Philips Healthcare develops AI-powered diagnostic tools that analyze medical images to detect subtle anomalies. Its AI technologies also support precision oncology by assisting pathologists in cancer diagnosis, care management, and patient monitoring.[131]
  • Tencent has been working on several medical systems and services. These include AI Medical Innovation System (AIMIS), an AI-powered diagnostic medical imaging service; WeChat Intelligent Healthcare; and Tencent Doctorwork[132]

Smaller companies, applications

[edit]

Another example, this time in the medical imaging space, is Optellum, an Oxford-based medical technology spin-out that provides an artificial intelligence decision-support system for assessing incidental pulmonary nodules on CT scans and supporting earlier lung cancer diagnosis.[133][134]

The Indian startup Haptik developed a WhatsApp chatbot in 2021 which answered questions associated with COVID-19 in India. Similarly, a software platform ChatBot in partnership with health technology startup Infermedica launched COVID-19 Risk Assessment ChatBot.[135]

Expanding care to developing nations

[edit]

Artificial intelligence continues to expand in its abilities to diagnose more people accurately in nations where fewer doctors are accessible to the public. Many new technology companies such as SpaceX and the Raspberry Pi Foundation have enabled more developing countries to have access to computers and the internet than ever before.[136] With the increasing capabilities of AI over the internet, advanced machine learning algorithms can allow patients to get accurately diagnosed when they would previously have no way of knowing if they had a life-threatening disease or not.[136]

Using AI in developing nations that do not have the resources will diminish the need for outsourcing and can improve patient care. AI can allow for not only diagnosis of patient in areas where healthcare is scarce, but also allow for a good patient experience by resourcing files to find the best treatment for a patient.[137] The ability of AI to adjust course as it goes also allows the patient to have their treatment modified based on what works for them; a level of individualized care that is nearly non-existent in developing countries.[137]

Regulation

[edit]

Challenges of the clinical use of AI have brought about a potential need for regulations. AI studies need to be completely and transparently reported to have value to inform regulatory approval. Depending on the phase of study, international consensus-based reporting guidelines (TRIPOD+AI,[138] DECIDE-AI,[139] CONSORT-AI[140]) have been developed to provide recommendations on the key details that need to be reported.

A man speaking at the GDPR compliance workshop at the 2019 Entrepreneurship Summit

While regulations exist pertaining to the collection of patient data such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the US (HIPAA) and the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) pertaining to patients within the EU, health care AI is "severely under-regulated worldwide" as of 2025.[141] Unclear is whether healthcare AI can be classified merely as software or as medical device.[141]

United Nations (WHO/ITU)

[edit]

The ITU-WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health (FG-AI4H) has built a platform known as the ITU-WHO AI for Health Framework for the testing and benchmarking of AI applications in health domain as a joint endeavor of ITU and WHO. As of November 2018, eight use cases were being benchmarked, including assessing breast cancer risk from histopathological imagery, guiding anti-venom selection from snake images, and diagnosing skin lesions.

USA

[edit]
United States Food & Drug Administration[142]

In 2015, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued rules and regulations to protect the privacy of individuals' health information, requiring healthcare providers to follow certain privacy rules when using AI, to keep a record of how they use AI and to ensure that their AI systems are secure.[143]

In May 2016, the White House announced its plan to host a series of workshops and formation of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.[144][145] In October 2016, the group published The National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan, outlining its proposed priorities for Federally-funded AI research and development (within government and academia). The report notes a strategic R&D plan for the subfield of health information technology was in development stages.[145]

Regulatory agencies have developed frameworks for machine-learning-enabled medical devices that may undergo post-market modification. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, and the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have published guidance on Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs) with the purpose of establishing procedures to validate and monitor planned modifications to machine learning devices after deployment.[146]

In January 2021, the US FDA published a new Action Plan, entitled Artificial Intelligence (AI) /Machine Learning (ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Action Plan.[147] It laid out the FDA's future plans for regulation of medical devices that would include artificial intelligence in their software with five main actions: 1. Tailored Regulatory Framework for Ai/M:-based SaMD, 2. Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP), 3. Patient-Centered Approach Incorporating Transparency to Users, 4. Regulatory Science Methods Related to Algorithm Bias & Robustness, and 5. Real-World Performance(RWP). This plan was in direct response to stakeholders' feedback on a 2019 discussion paper also published by the FDA.[147]

Under President Biden the DHSS and the National Institute of Standards and Technology were instructed to develop regulation of healthcare AI.[141] According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the OCR issued guidance on the ethical use of AI in healthcare in 2021. It outlined four core ethical principles that must be followed: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Respect for autonomy requires that individuals have control over their own data and decisions. Beneficence requires that AI be used to do good, such as improving the quality of care and reducing health disparities. Non-maleficence requires that AI be used to do no harm, such as avoiding discrimination in decisions. Finally, justice requires that AI be used fairly, such as using the same standards for decisions no matter a person's race, gender, or income level. As of March 2021, the OCR had hired a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer (OCAIO) to pursue the "implementation of the HHS AI strategy".[148]

With the second Trump administration deregulation of health AI began on January 20, 2025 with merely voluntary standards for collecting and sharing data, statutory definitions for algorithmic discrimination, automation bias, and equity being cancelled, cuts to NIST and 19% of FDA workforce eliminated.[141]

By 2026, the FDA had a database of authorized AI medical devices.[149] Manufacturers have also been encouraged to identify devices that incorporate large language model functionality going forward.

Europe

[edit]

Other countries have implemented data protection regulations, more specifically with company privacy invasions. In Denmark, the Danish Expert Group on data ethics has adopted recommendations on "Data for the Benefit of the People". These recommendations are intended to encourage the responsible use of data in the business sector, with a focus on data processing. The recommendations include a focus on equality and non-discrimination with regard to bias in AI, as well as human dignity which is to outweigh profit and must be respected in all data processes.[150]

The European Union has implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to protect citizens' personal data, which applies to the use of AI in healthcare. In addition, the European Commission has established guidelines to ensure the ethical development of AI, including the use of algorithms to ensure fairness and transparency.[151] With GDPR, the European Union was the first to regulate AI through data protection legislation. The Union finds privacy as a fundamental human right, it wants to prevent unconsented and secondary uses of data by private or public health facilities. By streamlining access to personal data for health research and findings, they are able to instate the right and importance of patient privacy.[151]

In March 2024, the European Union approved the pivotal Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act).[152] The regulation applies to European companies and organizations, and foreign providers of AI systems in the EU market. The EU AI Act has a risk-based structure, where AI enabled medical devices are in the "high-risk" category, the highest risk category of permitted uses for AI.[152]

In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requires organizations to protect the privacy and security of patient information. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have also released guidelines for the development of AI-based medical applications.[153]

In 2025, Europe was leading the USA on AI regulation, while lagging in innovation and at least one California-based biotech company was "engaging the European Medicines Agency earlier in development than previously anticipated to mitigate concerns about the FDA's ability to meet development timelines."[141]

Ethical concerns

[edit]

While research on the use of AI in healthcare aims to validate its efficacy in improving patient outcomes before its broader adoption, its use may introduce several new types of risk to patients and healthcare providers, such as algorithmic bias, Do not resuscitate implications, and other machine morality issues. AI may also compromise the protection of patients' rights, such as the right to informed consent and the right to medical data protection.[154]

Privacy and data collection

[edit]

In order to effectively train machine learning systems and use them in healthcare, massive amounts of data must be gathered. Acquiring this data, however, comes at the cost of patient privacy, which can be controversial. For example, a survey conducted in the UK estimated that 63% of the population is uncomfortable with sharing their personal data in order to improve AI technology.[155] The scarcity of real, accessible patient data is a hindrance that deters the progress of developing and deploying more AI in healthcare.

The lack of regulations surrounding AI in the United States has generated concerns about mismanagement of patient data, such as with corporations utilizing patient data for financial gain. For example, as of 2020, the Swiss healthcare company Roche reportedly purchased healthcare data for approximately 2 million cancer patients at an estimated total cost of $1.9 billion.[156] This generated ethical concerns about whether it was fair to sell patients' data, even considering the benefits. Ultimately, the current potential of AI in healthcare is additionally hindered by concerns about mismanagement of data collected, especially in the United States.

Since the early 2020s, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a major area of healthcare AI research and deployment.[157] Applications include clinical documentation, medical information retrieval, patient communication, and clinical decision support. Recent reviews describe a progression from simple question-answering systems toward more sophisticated "agentic" systems capable of assisting with complex clinical workflows. However, concerns remain regarding hallucinations, reliability, and clinical oversight.

The use of large language models for healthcare consultations introduces particular privacy risks, such as increased exposure of sensitive health information during consultations that may be collected for model retraining. A 2024 study of 846 Chinese users found that while 77.3% expressed willingness to use LLM-based healthcare services, privacy awareness varied significantly by demographics and cultural context.[158] The research revealed a "privacy paradox" where users who claimed greater privacy knowledge and concern actually showed higher acceptance of information sharing, potentially due to better understanding of legitimate uses such as academic research and service improvement.[159]

Privacy expectations for LLMs vary significantly across cultural contexts. Research in China has shown that users may have different privacy norms compared to Western populations, with factors such as age, education level, and medical background influencing acceptance of data sharing. Younger and more educated users tend to be more privacy-conscious, while those with medical backgrounds show greater acceptance of health data sharing for legitimate medical purposes.[159]

Clinical validation, implementation, and reproducibility

[edit]

Some clinical prediction models have used datasets whose origins and reliability could not be verified.[160][161] Research has identified several barriers to use of clinically validated AI tools, including inadequate implementation infrastructure, limited workflow integration, and the lack of ongoing performance monitoring.[162] There have been cases where AI has been put to use in healthcare without adequate testing.[163][164][165][166] Meta-research has identified reproducibility issues in some of the scientific literature on AI in healthcare.[167][168][169][170]

Technological unemployment

[edit]

A systematic review and thematic analysis in 2023 showed that most stakeholders including health professionals, patients, and the general public doubted that care involving AI could be empathetic, or fulfill beneficence.[7]

According to a 2019 study, AI can replace up to 35% of jobs in the UK within the next 10 to 20 years.[171] However, of these jobs, it was concluded that AI has not eliminated any healthcare jobs so far. Though if AI were to automate healthcare-related jobs, the jobs most susceptible to automation would be those dealing with digital information, radiology, and pathology, as opposed to those dealing with doctor-to-patient interaction.[171]

Outputs can be incorrect or incomplete and diagnosis and recommendations harm people.[141]

Bias and discrimination

[edit]

Medical establishments can unfairly code algorithms to discriminate against minorities or rare disease and prioritize profits rather than providing optimal care, i.e. violating the ethical principle of social justice or non-maleficence.[172] A recent scoping review identified 18 equity challenges along with 15 strategies that can be implemented to help address them when AI applications are developed using many-to-many mapping.[173]

There can be unintended bias in algorithms that can exacerbate social and healthcare inequities.[172] AI produces output solely from the data it receives as input. The data it receives must have an accurate representation of patient demographics. For instance, if populations are less represented in healthcare data it is likely to create bias in AI tools that lead to incorrect assumptions of a demographic and impact the ability to provide appropriate care.[174] White males are overly represented in medical data sets.[175] Therefore, having minimal patient data on minorities can lead to AI making more accurate predictions for majority populations, leading to unintended worse medical outcomes for minority populations.[176] Collecting data from minority communities can also lead to medical discrimination. For instance, HIV is a prevalent virus among minority communities and HIV status can be used to discriminate against patients.[175] In addition to biases that may arise from sample selection, different clinical systems used to collect data may also impact AI functionality. For example, radiographic systems and their outcomes (e.g., resolution) vary by provider. Moreover, clinician work practices, such as the positioning of the patient for radiography, can also greatly influence the data and make comparability difficult.[177]

An additional source of algorithmic bias, which has been called "label choice bias", arises when proxy measures are used to train algorithms, that build in bias against certain groups. For example, a widely used algorithm predicted health care costs as a proxy for health care needs, and used predictions to allocate resources to help patients with complex health needs. This introduced bias because Black patients have lower costs, even when they are just as unhealthy as White patients.[178]

History

[edit]

Research in the 1960s and 1970s produced the first problem-solving program, or expert system, known as Dendral.[179][180] While it was designed for applications in organic chemistry, it provided the basis for a subsequent system MYCIN,[181] considered one of the most significant early uses of artificial intelligence in medicine.[181][182] MYCIN and other systems such as INTERNIST-1 and CASNET did not achieve routine use by practitioners, however.[183]

The 1980s and 1990s brought the proliferation of the microcomputer and new levels of network connectivity. During this time, there was a recognition by researchers and developers that AI systems in healthcare must be designed to accommodate the absence of perfect data and build on the expertise of physicians.[184] Approaches involving fuzzy set theory, Bayesian networks,[186] and artificial neural networks,[187][188] have been applied to intelligent computing systems in healthcare.

Medical and technological advancements occurring over this half-century period that have enabled the growth of healthcare-related applications of AI to include:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. Sankar H, Alagarsamy R, Lal B, Rana SS, Roychoudhury A, Agrawal A, et al. (2024). "Role of artificial intelligence in treatment planning and outcome prediction of jaw corrective surgeries using 3-D imaging: A systematic review". Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, and Oral Radiology (Review). 139 (3): 299–310. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2024.09.010. PMID 39701860.
  2. Qiu Y, Cheng F (April 2024). "Artificial intelligence for drug discovery and development in Alzheimer's disease". Current Opinion in Structural Biology (Review). 85 102776. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102776. PMID 38335558.
  3. Bajwa J, Munir U, Nori A, Williams B (2021-07-01). "Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine". Future Healthcare Journal. 8 (2): e188–e194. doi:10.7861/fhj.2021-0095. ISSN 2514-6645. PMC 8285156. PMID 34286183.
  4. Fahim YA, Hasani IW, Kabba S, Ragab WM (2025-09-23). "Artificial intelligence in healthcare and medicine: clinical applications, therapeutic advances, and future perspectives". European Journal of Medical Research. 30 (1): 848. doi:10.1186/s40001-025-03196-w. ISSN 2047-783X. PMC 12455834. PMID 40988064.
  5. Daly JE, Delen D, Han Z, Smith R, Honerlaw J, Cho K, et al. (2026-05-04). "AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Promising Applications and Strategies for Managing Data Challenges". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 28 (1) e71532. doi:10.2196/71532. PMC 13138791. PMID 42081797.
  6. Floridi L, Luetge C, Pagallo U, Schafer B, Valcke P, Vayena E, et al. (2019-09-01). "Key Ethical Challenges in the European Medical Information Framework". Minds and Machines (General discussion). 29 (3): 355–371. doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9467-4. hdl:2318/1728336. ISSN 1572-8641. S2CID 49668711.
  7. 1 2 Vo V, Chen G, Aquino YS, Carter SM, Do QN, Woode ME (December 2023). "Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis". Social Science & Medicine (Review). 338 (1) 116357. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116357. PMID 37949020.
  8. Alowais SA, Alghamdi SS, Alsuhebany N, Alqahtani T, Alshaya AI, Almohareb SN, et al. (September 2023). "Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice". BMC Medical Education (Article). 23 (1) 689. doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z. PMC 10517477. PMID 37740191.
  9. Lyakhova UA, Lyakhov PA (August 2024). "Systematic review of approaches to detection and classification of skin cancer using artificial intelligence: Development and prospects". Computers in Biology and Medicine (Review). 178 108742. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108742. PMID 38875908 via ScienceDirect.
  10. Liang H, Tsui BY, Ni H, Valentim CC, Baxter SL, Liu G, et al. (March 2019). "Evaluation and accurate diagnoses of pediatric diseases using artificial intelligence". Nature Medicine (Letter). 25 (3): 433–438. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0335-9. PMID 30742121. S2CID 59945159.
  11. Li Q, Yang X, Xu J, Guo Y, He X, Hu H, et al. (August 2023). "Early prediction of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias using real-world electronic health records". Alzheimer's & Dementia (Research article). 19 (8): 3506–3518. doi:10.1002/alz.12967. PMC 10976442. PMID 36815661. S2CID 257101613.
  12. 1 2 Ayers JW, Poliak A, Dredze M, Leas EC, Zhu Z, Kelley JB, et al. (2023). "Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum". JAMA Internal Medicine (Original investigation). 183 (6): 589–596. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838. PMC 10148230. PMID 37115527.
  13. See 'Limitations' section of Ayers et al. (2023)
  14. Thomas M, Liakata M, Cristianini N, Aitken M, Cohn A, Sailem H, et al. (28 April 2023). "expert reaction to study comparing physician and AI chatbot responses to patient questions" (Interview) via Science Media Centre.
  15. Shmerling RH (March 27, 2024). "Can AI answer medical questions better than your doctor?". Harvard Health Publishing.
  16. Fayanju OM, Haut ER, Itani K (March 2025). "Practical Guide to Clinical Big Data Sources". JAMA Surgery (Guide to Statistics and Methods). 160 (3): 344–346. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.6006. PMC 12230764. PMID 39775674.
  17. Arzani S, Karimi A, Iranmanesh P, Yazdi M, Sabeti MA, Nekoofar MH, et al. (2025). "Examining the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for detecting dental caries across a range of imaging modalities: An umbrella review with meta-analysis". PLOS ONE (Research article). 20 (8) e0329986. Bibcode:2025PLoSO..2029986A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0329986. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 12349118. PMID 40802701.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Medrano IH, Guijarro JT, Belda C, Ureña A, Salcedo I, Anke LE, et al. (2018). "Savana: Re-using Electronic Health Records with Artificial Intelligence". International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence. 4 (7): 8–12. doi:10.9781/ijimai.2017.03.001. ISSN 1989-1660.
  19. 1 2 3 Eren A, Subasi A, Coskun O (February 2008). "A decision support system for telemedicine through the mobile telecommunications platform". Journal of Medical Systems. 32 (1): 31–35. doi:10.1007/s10916-007-9104-x. PMID 18333403. S2CID 11082133.
  20. Bennett CC, Doub TW, Selove R (April 2012). "EHRs connect research and practice: Where predictive modeling, artificial intelligence, and clinical decision support intersect". Health Policy and Technology. 1 (2): 105–114. arXiv:1204.4927. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2012.03.001. ISSN 2211-8837. S2CID 25022446.
  21. Blease C, Kaptchuk TJ, Bernstein MH, Mandl KD, Halamka JD, DesRoches CM (20 March 2019). "Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Primary Care: Exploratory Qualitative Study of UK General Practitioners' Views". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 21 (3) e12802. doi:10.2196/12802. PMC 6446158. PMID 30892270.
  22. Blease C, Locher C, Leon-Carlyle M, Doraiswamy M (January 2020). "Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Qualitative findings from a global physician survey". Digital Health. 6 2055207620968355. doi:10.1177/2055207620968355. PMC 7597571. PMID 33194219.
  23. Kharko A, Locher C, Torous J, Rosch SA, Hägglund M, Gaab J, et al. (July 2025). "Generative artificial intelligence in medicine: a mixed-methods survey of UK general practitioners". BMJ Digital Health & AI. 1 (1) e000051. doi:10.1136/bmjdhai-2025-000051.
  24. Kharko A, McMillan B, Hagström J, Muli I, Davidge G, Hägglund M, et al. (January 2024). "Generative artificial intelligence writing open notes: A mixed methods assessment of the functionality of GPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0". Digital Health. 10 20552076241291384. doi:10.1177/20552076241291384. PMC 11528788. PMID 39493632.
  25. Ayers JW, Poliak A, Dredze M, Leas EC, Zhu Z, Kelley JB, et al. (1 June 2023). "Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum". JAMA Internal Medicine. 183 (6): 589–596. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838. PMC 10148230. PMID 37115527.
  26. Kharko A, McMillan B, Hagström J, Muli I, Davidge G, Hägglund M, et al. (January 2024). "Generative artificial intelligence writing open notes: A mixed methods assessment of the functionality of GPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0". Digital Health. 10 20552076241291384. doi:10.1177/20552076241291384. PMC 11528788. PMID 39493632.
  27. Baker HP, Dwyer E, Kalidoss S, Hynes K, Wolf J, Strelzow JA (1 February 2024). "ChatGPT's Ability to Assist with Clinical Documentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial". Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 32 (3): 123–129. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00474. PMID 37976385.
  28. Kharko A, McMillan B, Hagström J, Muli I, Davidge G, Hägglund M, et al. (January 2024). "Generative artificial intelligence writing open notes: A mixed methods assessment of the functionality of GPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0". Digital Health. 10 20552076241291384. doi:10.1177/20552076241291384. PMC 11528788. PMID 39493632.
  29. Blease C, Torous J (November 2023). "ChatGPT and mental healthcare: balancing benefits with risks of harms". BMJ Mental Health. 26 (1) e300884. doi:10.1136/bmjment-2023-300884. PMC 10649440. PMID 37949485.
  30. Callaway E (2020-11-30). "'It will change everything': DeepMind's AI makes gigantic leap in solving protein structures". Nature. 588 (7837): 203–204. Bibcode:2020Natur.588..203C. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03348-4. PMID 33257889. S2CID 227243204.
  31. Knapp A. "2023 Breakthrough Prizes Announced: Deepmind's Protein Folders Awarded $3 Million". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2024-05-09. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
  32. Sample I (2023-09-21). "Team behind AI program AlphaFold win Lasker science prize". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
  33. Hunt Christian Edwards, Katie (9 October 2024). "Scientists who used AI to 'crack the code' of almost all proteins win Nobel Prize in chemistry". CNN. Archived from the original on 10 October 2024. Retrieved 9 October 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024". NobelPrize.org. Archived from the original on 2024-10-09. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  35. 1 2 Bokharaeian B, Diaz A, Chitsaz H (2016). "Enhancing Extraction of Drug-Drug Interaction from Literature Using Neutral Candidates, Negation, and Clause Dependency". PLOS ONE. 11 (10) e0163480. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1163480B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163480. PMC 5047471. PMID 27695078.
  36. 1 2 3 Cai R, Liu M, Hu Y, Melton BL, Matheny ME, Xu H, et al. (February 2017). "Identification of adverse drug-drug interactions through causal association rule discovery from spontaneous adverse event reports". Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 76: 7–15. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2017.01.004. PMC 6438384. PMID 28363289.
  37. 1 2 Christopoulou F, Tran TT, Sahu SK, Miwa M, Ananiadou S (January 2020). "Adverse drug events and medication relation extraction in electronic health records with ensemble deep learning methods". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 27 (1): 39–46. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz101. PMC 6913215. PMID 31390003.
  38. 1 2 Zhou D, Miao L, He Y (May 2018). "Position-aware deep multi-task learning for drug-drug interaction extraction" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 87: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2018.03.001. PMID 29559249. S2CID 3951020.
  39. García JS (2013-04-14). Optimización del tratamiento de enfermos pluripatológicos en atención primaria UCAMI HHUU Virgen del Rocio (Report). Sevilla. Spain via ponencias de la II Reunión de Paciente Pluripatológico y Edad Avanzada Archived.
  40. Herrero-Zazo M, Segura-Bedmar I, Martínez P, Declerck T (October 2013). "The DDI corpus: an annotated corpus with pharmacological substances and drug-drug interactions". Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 46 (5): 914–920. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.07.011. hdl:10016/20207. PMID 23906817.
  41. Segura Bedmar I, Martínez P, Herrero Zazo M (June 2013). Semeval-2013 task 9: Extraction of drug-drug interactions from biomedical texts (ddiextraction 2013). Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics. Vol. 2. Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 341–350.
  42. Xu B, Shi X, Yin Y, Zhao Z, Zheng W, Lin H, et al. (July 2019). "Incorporating User Generated Content for Drug Drug Interaction Extraction Based on Full Attention Mechanism". IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience. 18 (3): 360–367. Bibcode:2019ITNB...18..360X. doi:10.1109/TNB.2019.2919188. PMID 31144641. S2CID 169038906.
  43. Howcroft A, Bennett-Weston A, Khan A, Griffiths J, Gay S, Howick J (2025-09-22). "AI chatbots versus human healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of empathy in patient care". British Medical Bulletin. 156 (1) ldaf017. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldaf017. ISSN 0007-1420. PMC 12536877. PMID 41115171.
  44. Stokes F, Palmer A (October 2020). "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Nursing: Ethics of Caring as a Guide to Dividing Tasks Between AI and Humans". Nursing Philosophy. 21 (4) e12306. doi:10.1111/nup.12306. PMID 32609420.
  45. 1 2 Wang H, Zu Q, Chen J, Yang Z, Ahmed MA (October 2021). "Application of Artificial Intelligence in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Brief Literature Review". Advances in Therapy. 38 (10): 5078–5086. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01908-2. PMID 34528221. S2CID 237522871.
  46. Infante T, Cavaliere C, Punzo B, Grimaldi V, Salvatore M, Napoli C (December 2021). "Radiogenomics and Artificial Intelligence Approaches Applied to Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Precision Medicine in Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review". Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 14 (12): 1133–1146. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.013025. PMID 34915726. S2CID 245284764.
  47. Sotirakos S, Fouda B, Mohamed Razif NA, Cribben N, Mulhall C, O'Byrne A, et al. (February 2022). "Harnessing artificial intelligence in cardiac rehabilitation, a systematic review". Future Cardiology. 18 (2): 154–164. doi:10.2217/fca-2021-0010. PMID 33860679. S2CID 233258636.
  48. Chen W, Sun Q, Chen X, Xie G, Wu H, Xu C (May 2021). "Deep Learning Methods for Heart Sounds Classification: A Systematic Review". Entropy. 23 (6): 667. Bibcode:2021Entrp..23..667C. doi:10.3390/e23060667. PMC 8229456. PMID 34073201.
  49. Zhao Y, Wood EP, Mirin N, Cook SH, Chunara R (October 2021). "Social Determinants in Machine Learning Cardiovascular Disease Prediction Models: A Systematic Review". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 61 (4): 596–605. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.016. PMID 34544559.
  50. He B, Kwan AC, Cho JH, Yuan N, Pollick C, Shiota T, et al. (April 2023). "Blinded, randomized trial of sonographer versus AI cardiac function assessment". Nature. 616 (7957): 520–524. Bibcode:2023Natur.616..520H. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05947-3. PMC 10115627. PMID 37020027.
  51. Mullainathan S, Obermeyer Z (2022). ""Diagnosing Physician Error: A Machine Learning Approach to Low-Value Health Care"". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 137 (2): 679–727. doi:10.1093/qje/qjab046. PMC 12497445. PMID 41054600 via Oxford Academic.
  52. Li Z, Koban KC, Schenck TL, Giunta RE, Li Q, Sun Y (2022-11-18). "Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology Image Analysis: Current Developments and Future Trends". Journal of Clinical Medicine. 11 (22): 6826. doi:10.3390/jcm11226826. ISSN 2077-0383. PMC 9693628. PMID 36431301.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  53. Han SS, Moon IJ, Lim W, Suh IS, Lee SY, Na JI, et al. (2020-01-01). "Keratinocytic Skin Cancer Detection on the Face Using Region-Based Convolutional Neural Network". JAMA Dermatology. 156 (1): 29–37. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3807. ISSN 2168-6068.
  54. Salinas MP, Sepúlveda J, Hidalgo L, Peirano D, Morel M, Uribe P, et al. (2024-05-14). "A systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence versus clinicians for skin cancer diagnosis". npj Digital Medicine. 7 (1): 125. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01103-x. ISSN 2398-6352.
  55. Krakowski I, Kim J, Cai ZR, Daneshjou R, Lapins J, Eriksson H, et al. (2024-04-09). "Human-AI interaction in skin cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis". npj Digital Medicine. 7 (1): 78. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01031-w. ISSN 2398-6352.
  56. Guo LN, Lee MS, Kassamali B, Mita C, Nambudiri VE (2022-07-01). "Bias in, bias out: Underreporting and underrepresentation of diverse skin types in machine learning research for skin cancer detection—A scoping review". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 87 (1): 157–159. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.06.884. ISSN 0190-9622. PMID 34252465.
  57. Daneshjou R, Vodrahalli K, Novoa RA, Jenkins M, Liang W, Rotemberg V, et al. (2022-08-12). "Disparities in dermatology AI performance on a diverse, curated clinical image set". Science Advances. 8 (32): eabq6147. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq6147. PMC 9374341. PMID 35960806.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  58. Choy SP, Kim BJ, Paolino A, Tan WR, Lim SM, Seo J, et al. (2023-09-27). "Systematic review of deep learning image analyses for the diagnosis and monitoring of skin disease". NPJ digital medicine. 6 (1): 180. doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00914-8. ISSN 2398-6352. PMC 10533565. PMID 37758829.
  59. Binol H, Plotner A, Sopkovich J, Kaffenberger B, Niazi MK, Gurcan MN (2019-12-17). "Ros-NET: A deep convolutional neural network for automatic identification of rosacea lesions". Skin Research and Technology: Official Journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS). 26 (3): 413–421. doi:10.1111/srt.12817. ISSN 1600-0846. PMID 31849118.
  60. Kania B, Montecinos K, Goldberg DJ (2024-03-31). "Artificial intelligence in cosmetic dermatology". Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 23 (10): 3305–3311. doi:10.1111/jocd.16538. ISSN 1473-2130.
  61. Elder A, Cappelli MO, Ring C, Saedi N (2023-12-15). "Artificial intelligence in cosmetic dermatology: An update on current trends". Clinics in Dermatology. 42 (3): 216–220. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.12.015.
  62. Petronelli M (2025-10-07). "AI-powered diagnostic tool accurately identifies rosacea | Dermatology Times - Dermatology News and Clinical Insights". www.dermatologytimes.com. Retrieved 2025-10-07.
  63. Patcas R, Bernini DA, Volokitin A, Agustsson E, Rothe R, Timofte R (January 2019). "Applying artificial intelligence to assess the impact of orthognathic treatment on facial attractiveness and estimated age". International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 48 (1): 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2018.07.010. PMID 30087062.
  64. Patcas R, Timofte R, Volokitin A, Agustsson E, Eliades T, Eichenberger M, et al. (August 2019). "Facial attractiveness of cleft patients: a direct comparison between artificial-intelligence-based scoring and conventional rater groups". European Journal of Orthodontics. 41 (4): 428–433. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjz007. hdl:20.500.11850/377316. PMID 30788496. S2CID 73507799.
  65. 1 2 Cao JS, Lu ZY, Chen MY, Zhang B, Juengpanich S, Hu JH, et al. (April 2021). "Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology and hepatology: Status and challenges". World Journal of Gastroenterology. 27 (16): 1664–1690. doi:10.3748/wjg.v27.i16.1664. PMC 8072192. PMID 33967550.
  66. "Artificial intelligence: 10 promising interventions for healthcare". NIHR Evidence. National Institute for Health and Care Research. 28 July 2023. doi:10.3310/nihrevidence_59502.
  67. Iacucci M, Parigi TL, Del Amor R, Meseguer P, Mandelli G, Bozzola A, et al. (June 2023). "Artificial Intelligence Enabled Histological Prediction of Remission or Activity and Clinical Outcomes in Ulcerative Colitis". Gastroenterology. 164 (7): 1180–1188.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2023.02.031. hdl:2434/962515. PMID 36871598.
  68. 1 2 Tran NK, Albahra S, May L, Waldman S, Crabtree S, Bainbridge S, et al. (December 2021). "Evolving Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Infectious Diseases Testing". Clinical Chemistry. 68 (1): 125–133. doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvab239. PMC 9383167. PMID 34969102.
  69. Mann S, Berdahl CT, Baker L, Girosi F (October 2022). Pani D (ed.). "Artificial intelligence applications used in the clinical response to COVID-19: A scoping review". PLOS Digital Health. 1 (10) e0000132. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000132. PMC 9931281. PMID 36812557.
  70. "AI could make health care fairer—by helping us believe what patients say". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  71. Pierson E, Cutler DM, Leskovec J, Mullainathan S, Obermeyer Z (January 2021). "An algorithmic approach to reducing unexplained pain disparities in underserved populations". Nature Medicine. 27 (1): 136–140. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01192-7. PMID 33442014. S2CID 256839494.
  72. Khojaste-Sarakhsi M, Haghighi SS, Ghomi SM, Marchiori E (August 2022). "Deep learning for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: A survey". Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 130 (933–3657) 102332. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102332. PMID 35809971. S2CID 249633553.
  73. "About ADNI". 2017. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
  74. Nguyen HD, Clément M, Mansencal B, Coupé P (21 September 2021). Deep Grading Based on Collective Artificial Intelligence for AD Diagnosis and Prognosis. Interpretability of Machine Intelligence in Medical Image Computing, and Topological Data Analysis and Its Applications for Medical Data. Springer, Cham. pp. 24–33. arXiv:2211.15192. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87444-5_3.
  75. Fisher CK, Smith AM, Walsh JR (September 2019). "Machine learning for comprehensive forecasting of Alzheimer's Disease progression". Scientific Reports. 9 (1) 13622. arXiv:1807.03876. Bibcode:2019NatSR...913622F. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-49656-2. PMC 6754403. PMID 31541187.
  76. Mishra A, Sharma S, Pandey SK (2025-02-03). "The Present State and Potential Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment". Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery. 20 (3): 287–305. doi:10.2174/0115748928361472250123105507. ISSN 2212-3970. PMID 39902536.
  77. Majumder A, Sen D (October 2021). "Artificial intelligence in cancer diagnostics and therapy: current perspectives". Indian Journal of Cancer. 58 (4): 481–492. doi:10.4103/ijc.IJC_399_20. PMID 34975094. S2CID 240522128.
  78. Kobie N (1 January 2020). "DeepMind's new AI can spot breast cancer just as well as your doctor". Wired. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
  79. McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V, Godwin J, Antropova N, Ashrafian H, et al. (January 2020). "International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening". Nature. 577 (7788): 89–94. Bibcode:2020Natur.577...89M. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6. hdl:10044/1/76203. PMID 31894144. S2CID 209523468.
  80. McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V, Godwin J, Antropova N, Ashrafian H, et al. (January 2020). "International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening". Nature. 577 (7788): 89–94. Bibcode:2020Natur.577...89M. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6. hdl:10044/1/76203. PMID 31894144.
  81. Heaven WD (November 12, 2020). "AI is wrestling with a replication crisis". MIT Technology Review.
  82. "Artificial intelligence identifies prostate cancer with near-perfect accuracy". EurekAlert!. 27 July 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  83. Pantanowitz L, Quiroga-Garza GM, Bien L, Heled R, Laifenfeld D, Linhart C, et al. (August 2020). "An artificial intelligence algorithm for prostate cancer diagnosis in whole slide images of core needle biopsies: a blinded clinical validation and deployment study". The Lancet. Digital Health. 2 (8): e407–e416. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30159-X. PMID 33328045.
  84. Arthur A, Orton MR, Emsley R, Vit S, Kelly-Morland C, Strauss D, et al. (November 2023). "A CT-based radiomics classification model for the prediction of histological type and tumour grade in retroperitoneal sarcoma (RADSARC-R): a retrospective multicohort analysis". The Lancet. Oncology. 24 (11): 1277–1286. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00462-X. PMC 10618402. PMID 37922931.
  85. "Scientists excited by AI tool that grades severity of rare cancer". BBC News. 2023-11-01. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
  86. Ravindran S (April 2019). "How artificial intelligence is helping to prevent blindness". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01111-y. PMID 32269369. S2CID 146005413.
  87. Office of the Commissioner (2020-03-24). "FDA permits marketing of artificial intelligence-based device to detect certain diabetes-related eye problems". FDA. Archived from the original on May 1, 2019. Retrieved 2023-02-11.
  88. Han JH (August 2022). "Artificial Intelligence in Eye Disease: Recent Developments, Applications, and Surveys". Diagnostics. 12 (8): 1927. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12081927. PMC 9406878. PMID 36010277.
  89. Lourenço BC, Guimarães-Teixeira C, Flores BC, Miranda-Gonçalves V, Guimarães R, Cantante M, et al. (February 2022). "Ki67 and LSD1 Expression in Testicular Germ Cell Tumors Is Not Associated with Patient Outcome: Investigation Using a Digital Pathology Algorithm". Life. 12 (2): 264. Bibcode:2022Life...12..264L. doi:10.3390/life12020264. PMC 8875543. PMID 35207551.
    - Figure 2 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
  90. 1 2 3 4 5 Försch S, Klauschen F, Hufnagl P, Roth W (March 2021). "Artificial Intelligence in Pathology". Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 118 (12): 194–204. doi:10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0011. PMC 8278129. PMID 34024323.
  91. Steiner DF, MacDonald R, Liu Y, Truszkowski P, Hipp JD, Gammage C, et al. (December 2018). "Impact of Deep Learning Assistance on the Histopathologic Review of Lymph Nodes for Metastatic Breast Cancer". The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 42 (12): 1636–1646. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000001151. PMC 6257102. PMID 30312179.
  92. Ho J, Ahlers SM, Stratman C, Aridor O, Pantanowitz L, Fine JL, et al. (2014). "Can digital pathology result in cost savings? A financial projection for digital pathology implementation at a large integrated health care organization". Journal of Pathology Informatics. 5 (1) 33. doi:10.4103/2153-3539.139714. PMC 4168664. PMID 25250191.
  93. Jurmeister P, Bockmayr M, Seegerer P, Bockmayr T, Treue D, Montavon G, et al. (September 2019). "Machine learning analysis of DNA methylation profiles distinguishes primary lung squamous cell carcinomas from head and neck metastases". Science Translational Medicine. 11 (509) eaaw8513. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw8513. PMID 31511427. S2CID 202564269.
  94. Khan O, Parvez M, Kumari P, Parvez S, Ahmad S (2023). "The future of pharmacy: How AI is revolutionizing the industry". Intelligent Pharmacy. 1 (1): 32–40. doi:10.1016/j.ipha.2023.04.008.
  95. Ghanem M, Ghaith AK, Bydon M (2024). "Chapter 6 Artificial intelligence and personalized medicine: transforming patient care". The New Era of Precision Medicine. Elsevier. pp. 131–142. doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13963-5.00012-1. ISBN 978-0-443-13963-5. Retrieved 2024-10-10.(subscription required)
  96. Mistry P (September 2019). "Artificial intelligence in primary care". The British Journal of General Practice. 69 (686): 422–423. doi:10.3399/bjgp19X705137. PMC 6715470. PMID 31467001.
  97. Blease C, Kaptchuk TJ, Bernstein MH, Mandl KD, Halamka JD, DesRoches CM (March 2019). "Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Primary Care: Exploratory Qualitative Study of UK General Practitioners' Views". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 21 (3) e12802. doi:10.2196/12802. PMC 6446158. PMID 30892270. S2CID 59175658.
  98. Herter WE, Khuc J, Cinà G, Knottnerus BJ, Numans ME, Wiewel MA, et al. (May 2022). "Impact of a Machine Learning-Based Decision Support System for Urinary Tract Infections: Prospective Observational Study in 36 Primary Care Practices". JMIR Medical Informatics. 10 (5) e27795. doi:10.2196/27795. PMC 9118012. PMID 35507396. S2CID 246819392.
  99. Savage N (January 2022). "Robots rise to meet the challenge of caring for old people". Nature. 601 (7893): S8–S10. Bibcode:2022Natur.601S...8S. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00072-z. PMID 35046591. S2CID 246064292.
  100. Shastri D (29 September 2025). "Regulators struggle to keep up with the fast-moving and complicated landscape of AI therapy apps". AP News. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  101. Griesser K (27 August 2025). "Your AI therapist might be illegal soon. Here's why". CNN. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  102. Johnston W (2025-09-30). "With therapy hard to get, people lean on AI for mental health. What are the risks?". KPBS Public Media. Retrieved 2025-12-04.
  103. Abrams Z (12 March 2025). "Using generic AI chatbots for mental health support: A dangerous trend". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 13 December 2025.
  104. Yang M (1 March 2020). "Painful conversations: Therapeutic chatbots and public capacities". Communication and the Public. 5 (1–2): 35–44. doi:10.1177/2057047320950636. ISSN 2057-0473.
  105. "AI chatbots are here to help with your mental health, despite limited evidence they work". The Economic Times. March 23, 2024. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2025-04-29.
  106. "'He checks in on me more than my friends and family': can AI therapists do better than the real thing?". The Guardian. 2024-03-02. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-04-29.
  107. Ducharme J (2023-10-04). "Can AI Chatbots Ever Replace Human Therapists?". TIME. Retrieved 2025-04-29.
  108. Fulmer R, Joerin A, Gentile B, Lakerink L, Rauws M (December 2018). "Using Psychological Artificial Intelligence (Tess) to Relieve Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: Randomized Controlled Trial". JMIR Mental Health. 5 (4): e64. doi:10.2196/mental.9782. PMC 6315222. PMID 30545815.
  109. Coppersmith G, Leary R, Crutchley P, Fine A (January 2018). "Natural Language Processing of Social Media as Screening for Suicide Risk". Biomedical Informatics Insights. 10 1178222618792860. doi:10.1177/1178222618792860. PMC 6111391. PMID 30158822. We examined the ethical and privacy concerns around the use of these algorithms for screening and monitoring, concluding that there are novel ways to consider using information from these algorithms to aid intervention, but the general public has voiced opposition to related approaches. Although the design of an intervention system powered by algorithmic screening is technically possible, the cultural implications of implementation are far from settled.
  110. Brunn M, Diefenbacher A, Courtet P, Genieys W (August 2020). "The Future is Knocking: How Artificial Intelligence Will Fundamentally Change Psychiatry". Academic Psychiatry. 44 (4): 461–466. doi:10.1007/s40596-020-01243-8. PMID 32424706. S2CID 218682746.
  111. Rutledge RB, Chekroud AM, Huys QJ (April 2019). "Machine learning and big data in psychiatry: toward clinical applications". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Machine Learning, Big Data, and Neuroscience. 55: 152–159. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2019.02.006. PMID 30999271. S2CID 115202826.
  112. Crimmins T (2023-05-30). "'This robot causes harm': National Eating Disorders Association's new chatbot advises people with disordering eating to lose weight". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2023-06-02.
  113. Knight T (May 31, 2023). "Eating disorder helpline fires AI for harmful advice after sacking humans".
  114. Aratani L (2023-05-31). "US eating disorder helpline takes down AI chatbot over harmful advice". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-06-01.
  115. Liu X, Faes L, Kale AU, Wagner SK, Fu DJ, Bruynseels A, et al. (October 2019). "A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis". The Lancet. Digital Health. 1 (6): e271–e297. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30123-2. PMID 33323251. S2CID 204037561.
  116. Georgescu MI, Ionescu RT, Miron AI, Savencu O, Ristea NC, Verga N, et al. (2023). Multimodal Multi-Head Convolutional Attention With Various Kernel Sizes for Medical Image Super-Resolution (Report). IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 2195–2205.
  117. Richardson ML, Garwood ER, Lee Y, Li MD, Lo HS, Nagaraju A, et al. (September 2021). "Noninterpretive Uses of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology". Academic Radiology. 28 (9): 1225–1235. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2020.01.012. PMID 32059956.
  118. Seifert R, Weber M, Kocakavuk E, Rischpler C, Kersting D (March 2021). "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Nuclear Medicine: Future Perspectives". Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. 51 (2): 170–177. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.08.003. PMID 33509373. S2CID 224863373.
  119. Pacilè S, Lopez J, Chone P, Bertinotti T, Grouin JM, Fillard P (November 2020). "Improving Breast Cancer Detection Accuracy of Mammography with the Concurrent Use of an Artificial Intelligence Tool". Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. 2 (6) e190208. doi:10.1148/ryai.2020190208. PMC 8082372. PMID 33937844.
  120. "Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices". U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 10 July 2025. Retrieved 2025-09-26.
  121. McCarthy J (2016-05-31). "Intel Capital invests $10 million in medical artificial intelligence". Healthcare IT News. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  122. Gabrielczyk T (2025-09-24). "Siemens Healthineers enters CRISPR diagnostics space". European Biotechnology Magazine. Retrieved 2025-09-25.
  123. Tung L (September 20, 2016). "Microsoft's next big AI project? Helping 'solve' cancer". ZDNET. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  124. Cabili C (2026-06-03). "Microsoft and Mayo Clinic partner to build healthcare AI model". Quartz. Retrieved 2026-06-28.
  125. "Royal Philips unveils smart baby monitor | Mobi Health News". www.mobihealthnews.com. 2024-10-03. Retrieved 2025-09-25.
  126. "How is a messaging app improving public health in China?". euronews. 2025-07-01. Retrieved 2025-08-18.
  127. Bawden T (2021-04-26). "AI breakthrough could speed up lung cancer diagnosis - and save the NHS millions". The i Paper. Retrieved 2025-12-13.
  128. "Oxford spin-out Optellum attains CE marking for its early lung cancer diagnosis AI technology". Retrieved 2025-12-13.
  129. Carpenter J (2021-04-07). "Meet the Chatbots That Might Manage Your Money One Day". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2022-06-30.
  130. 1 2 Abou-Zahra S, Brewer J, Cooper M (2018-04-23). "Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Web Accessibility". Proceedings of the 15th International Web for All Conference. W4A '18. Lyon, France: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1–4. doi:10.1145/3192714.3192834. ISBN 978-1-4503-5651-0. S2CID 49863409.
  131. 1 2 Guo J, Li B (2018-08-01). "The Application of Medical Artificial Intelligence Technology in Rural Areas of Developing Countries". Health Equity. 2 (1): 174–181. doi:10.1089/heq.2018.0037. PMC 6110188. PMID 30283865.
  132. Collins GS, Moons KG, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Beam AL, Van Calster B, et al. (April 2024). "TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods". BMJ. 385 e078378. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378. PMC 11019967. PMID 38626948.
  133. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, Clifton DA, Collins GS, Denaxas S, et al. (May 2022). "Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI". BMJ. 377 e070904. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-070904. PMC 9116198. PMID 35584845.
  134. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK (September 2020). "Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension". Nature Medicine. 26 (9): 1364–1374. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x. PMC 7598943. PMID 32908283.
  135. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Webster P (May 2025). "US AI regulatory rollback and health". The Lancet. 405 (10490): 1654–1656. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00980-8.
  136. Office of the Commissioner (2022-11-30). "About FDA". FDA. Retrieved 2023-04-08.
  137. "Civil Rights for Providers of Health Care and Human Services". hhs.gov. Office for Civil Rights. 2015-09-05. Retrieved 2022-12-17.
  138. "Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence". whitehouse.gov. 2016-05-03. Retrieved 2025-08-18.
  139. 1 2 "OCR of the Document | National Security Archive". nsarchive.gwu.edu. Retrieved 2025-08-18.
  140. Health Cf (2025-08-18). "Predetermined Change Control Plans for Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices: Guiding Principles". FDA.
  141. 1 2 "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Software as a Medical Device". FDA. 2023-10-20.
  142. "HHS Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy". www.hhs.gov. 2021-12-22. Archived from the original on January 26, 2022. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  143. Health Cf (2026-06-16). "Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Devices". FDA.
  144. "Cambridge Core - Journals & Books Online | Cambridge University Press". Cambridge Core. Retrieved 2022-12-17.
  145. 1 2 Forcier MB, Gallois H, Mullan S, Joly Y (October 2019). "Integrating artificial intelligence into health care through data access: can the GDPR act as a beacon for policymakers?". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 6 (1): 317–335. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz013. PMC 6813940. PMID 31666972.
  146. 1 2 Aboy M, Minssen T, Vayena E (2024-09-06). "Navigating the EU AI Act: implications for regulated digital medical products". npj Digital Medicine. 7 (1) 237: 1–6. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01232-3. ISSN 2398-6352. PMC 11379845. PMID 39242831.
  147. "Sharing and Utilizing Health Data for AI Applications" (PDF). hhs.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 24, 2019.
  148. Van Kolfschooten H (2022-02-01). "EU regulation of artificial intelligence: Challenges for patients' rights" (PDF). Common Market Law Review. 59 (1): 81–112. doi:10.54648/COLA2022005. ISSN 0165-0750. S2CID 248591427.
  149. Lacassie E, Marquet P, Martin-Dupont S, Gaulier JM, Lachâtre G (September 2000). "A non-fatal case of intoxication with foxglove, documented by means of liquid chromatography-electrospray-mass spectrometry". Journal of Forensic Sciences. 45 (5): 1154–1158. doi:10.1520/JFS14845J. PMID 11005196.
  150. Mudgal KS, Das N (2020-11-01). "The ethical adoption of artificial intelligence in radiology". BJR Open. 2 (1) 20190020. doi:10.1259/bjro.20190020. PMC 7605209. PMID 33178959.
  151. Truhn D, Kather JN (March 23, 2026). "Large language models in healthcare". Nature Reviews Nephrology. 22 (6): 381–382. doi:10.1038/s41581-026-01071-3. ISSN 1759-507X. PMID 41872604.
  152. PwC, "The Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence on UK Employment and the Demand for Skills," 2021, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/615d9a1ad3bf7f55fa92694a/impact-of-ai-on-jobs.pdf
  153. 1 2 Liu Z, Hu L, Zhou T, Tang Y, Cai Z (May 2025). "Prevalence Overshadows Concerns? Understanding Chinese Users' Privacy Awareness and Expectations Towards LLM-Based Healthcare Consultation". 2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). pp. 2716–2734. doi:10.1109/SP61157.2025.00092. ISBN 979-8-3315-2236-0.
  154. Basu M (2026-04-15). "Dozens of AI disease-prediction models were trained on dubious data". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-026-00697-4. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 41986680.
  155. Gibson AD, White NM, Collins GS, Barnett AG (2026-06-04). "Evidence of unreliable data and poor data provenance in clinical prediction model research and clinical practice". BMC Medicine. doi:10.1186/s12916-026-04981-y. ISSN 1741-7015. PMID 42243840.
  156. Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, Ghassemi M, Liu VX, Doshi-Velez F, et al. (September 2019). "Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care". Nature Medicine. 25 (9): 1337–1340. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6. ISSN 1078-8956. PMID 31427808.
  157. Wong A, Otles E, Donnelly JP, Krumm A, McCullough J, DeTroyer-Cooley O, et al. (June 21, 2021). "External Validation of a Widely Implemented Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model in Hospitalized Patients". JAMA Internal Medicine (Original investigation). 181 (8): 1065–1070. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2626. PMC 8218233. PMID 34152373.
  158. Simonite T (June 21, 2021). "An Algorithm That Predicts Deadly Infections Is Often Flawed". Wired Magazine.
  159. Simonite T (October 24, 2019). "A health care algorithm offered less care to black patients". Wired Magazine.
  160. Ross C, Swetlitz I (September 5, 2017). "IBM pitched its Watson supercomputer as a revolution in cancer care. It's nowhere close". Stat.
  161. Scudellari M (March 29, 2021). "Machine Learning Faces a Reckoning in Health Research". IEEE Spectrum.
  162. McDermott MB, Wang S, Marinsek N, Ranganath R, Foschini L, Ghassemi M (March 24, 2021). "Reproducibility in machine learning for health research: Still a ways to go". Science Translational Medicine (Perspective). 13 (586) eabb1655. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abb1655. PMC 12862614. PMID 33762434.
  163. Varoquaux G, Cheplygina V (April 12, 2022). "Machine learning for medical imaging: methodological failures and recommendations for the future". npj Digital Medicine (Review). 5 (48) 48. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00592-y. PMC 9005663. PMID 35413988.
  164. Sohn E (January 9, 2023). "The reproducibility issues that haunt health-care AI". Nature (Technology feature). 613 (7943): 402–403. Bibcode:2023Natur.613..402S. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00023-2. PMID 36624237. Archived from the original on 11 January 2023.
  165. 1 2 Davenport T, Kalakota R (June 2019). "The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare". Future Healthcare Journal. 6 (2): 94–98. doi:10.7861/futurehosp.6-2-94. PMC 6616181. PMID 31363513.
  166. 1 2 Baric-Parker J, Anderson EE (November 2020). "Patient Data-Sharing for AI: Ethical Challenges, Catholic Solutions". The Linacre Quarterly. 87 (4): 471–481. doi:10.1177/0024363920922690. PMC 7551527. PMID 33100395.
  167. Mann S, Berdahl CT, Baker L, Girosi F (October 2022). "Artificial intelligence applications used in the clinical response to COVID-19: A scoping review". PLOS Digital Health. 1 (10): e0000132. doi:10.2196/42936. PMC 11041459. PMID 38875587. S2CID 256681439.
  168. Backman I (21 December 2023). "Eliminating Racial Bias in Health Care AI: Expert Panel Offers Guidelines". medicine.yale.edu. Retrieved 2025-02-28.
  169. 1 2 Nordling L (September 2019). "A fairer way forward for AI in health care". Nature. 573 (7775): S103–S105. Bibcode:2019Natur.573S.103N. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02872-2. PMID 31554993. S2CID 202749329.
  170. Reddy S, Allan S, Coghlan S, Cooper P (March 2020). "A governance model for the application of AI in health care". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 27 (3): 491–497. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz192. PMC 7647243. PMID 31682262.
  171. Pumplun L, Fecho M, Wahl N, Peters F, Buxmann P (October 2021). "Adoption of Machine Learning Systems for Medical Diagnostics in Clinics: Qualitative Interview Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 23 (10) e29301. doi:10.2196/29301. PMC 8556641. PMID 34652275. S2CID 238990562.
  172. Evans M, Mathews AW (2019-10-24). "Researchers Find Racial Bias in Hospital Algorithm". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  173. Lindsay RK, Buchanan BG, Feigenbaum EA, Lederberg J (1993). "DENDRAL: a case study of the first expert system for scientific hypothesis formation". Artificial Intelligence. 61 (2): 209–261. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(93)90068-m. hdl:2027.42/30758.
  174. Lea AS (2023). Digitizing Diagnosis: Medicine, Minds, and Machines in Twentieth-Century America. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1–256. ISBN 978-1-4214-4681-3.
  175. 1 2 Clancey WJ, Shortliffe EH (1984). Readings in medical artificial intelligence: the first decade. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
  176. Bruce G, Buchanan BG, Shortliffe ED (1984). Rule-based expert systems: the MYCIN experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project.
  177. Duda RO, Shortliffe EH (April 1983). "Expert Systems Research". Science. 220 (4594): 261–268. Bibcode:1983Sci...220..261D. doi:10.1126/science.6340198. PMID 6340198.
  178. Miller RA (1994). "Medical diagnostic decision support systems--past, present, and future: a threaded bibliography and brief commentary". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 1 (1): 8–27. doi:10.1136/jamia.1994.95236141. PMC 116181. PMID 7719792.
  179. Reggia JA, Peng Y (September 1987). "Modeling diagnostic reasoning: a summary of parsimonious covering theory". Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 25 (2): 125–134. doi:10.1016/0169-2607(87)90048-4. PMC 2244953. PMID 3315427.
  180. Baxt WG (December 1991). "Use of an artificial neural network for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction". Annals of Internal Medicine. 115 (11): 843–848. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-115-11-843. PMID 1952470.
  181. Maclin PS, Dempsey J, Brooks J, Rand J (February 1991). "Using neural networks to diagnose cancer". Journal of Medical Systems. 15 (1): 11–19. doi:10.1007/bf00993877. PMID 1748845. S2CID 10189561.
  182. Koomey J, Berard S, Sanchez M, Wong H (March 2010). "Implications of historical trends in the electrical efficiency of computing". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 33 (3): 46–54. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.323.9505. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2010.28. S2CID 8305701.
  183. Barnes B, Dupré J (2009). Genomes and what to make of them. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-17296-5. [page needed]
  184. Banko M, Brill E (July 2001). "Scaling to very very large corpora for natural language disambiguation" (PDF). Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics: 26–33. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-04-07. Retrieved 2019-04-07.
  185. Dougherty G (2009). Digital image processing for medical applications. Cambridge University Press.
  186. "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Healthcare". Sigmoidal. 21 December 2017. Archived from the original on 17 August 2020. Retrieved 26 March 2018.
  187. Hu L, Li L (December 2022). "Using Tree-Based Machine Learning for Health Studies: Literature Review and Case Series". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19 (23) 16080. doi:10.3390/ijerph192316080. PMC 9736500. PMID 36498153.


[edit]