Cell Maps for Artificial Intelligence: AI-Ready Maps of Human Cell Architecture from Disease-Relevant Cell Lines.

This article describes the Cell Maps for Artificial Intelligence (CM4AI) project and its goals, methods, standards, current datasets, software tools , status, and future directions. CM4AI is the Functional Genomics Data Generation Project in the U.S. National Institute of Health's (NIH) Bridge2AI program. Its overarching mission is to produce ethical, AI-ready datasets of cell architecture, inferred from multimodal data collected for human cell lines, to enable transformative biomedical AI research.

Voice as a Biomarker in Health-Tech: Mapping the Evolving Landscape of Voice Biomarkers in the Start-Up World.

OBJECTIVE: The vocal biomarkers market was worth $1.9B in 2021 and is projected to exceed $5.1B by 2028, for a compound annual growth rate of 15.15%. The investment growth demonstrates a blossoming interest in voice and artificial intelligence (AI) as it relates to human health. The objective of this study was to map the current landscape of start-ups utilizing voice as a biomarker in health-tech. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search for start-ups was conducted using Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook. A review of the research was performed using company website, PubMed, and Google Scholar. REVIEW METHODS: A 3-pronged approach was taken to thoroughly map the landscape. First, an internet search was conducted to identify current start-ups focusing on products relating to voice as a biomarker of health. Second, Crunchbase was utilized to collect financial and organizational information. Third, a review of the literature was conducted to analyze publications associated with the identified start-ups. RESULTS: A total of 27 start-up start-ups with a focus in the utilization of AI for developing biomarkers of health from the human voice were identified. Twenty-four of these start-ups garnered $178,808,039 in investments. The 27 start-ups published 194 publications combined, 128 (66%) of which were peer reviewed. CONCLUSION: There is growing enthusiasm surrounding voice as a biomarker in health-tech. Academic drive may complement commercialization to best achieve progress in this arena. More research is needed to accurately capture the entirety of the field, including larger industry players, academic institutions, and non-English content.

Understanding drug exceptional access programs (DEAPs) in Canada, and their associated social and political issues.

Drug exceptional access programs (DEAPs) exist across Canada to address gaps in access to pharmaceuticals. These programs circumvent standard procedures, raising epistemic, economic, social and political issues. This commentary provides insights into these issues by revealing the context and procedures on which these programs depend.

Proposed Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing: Anti-Discriminatory, Global, and Inclusive.

This paper opens a critical conversation about the ethics of international bioethics conferencing and proposes principles that commit to being anti-discriminatory, global, and inclusive. We launch this conversation in the Section, Case Study, with a case example involving the International Association of Bioethics' (IAB's) selection of Qatar to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics. IAB's choice of Qatar sparked controversy. We believe it also may reveal deeper issues of Islamophobia in bioethics. The Section, Principles for International Bioethics Conferencing, sets forth and defends proposed principles for international bioethics conferencing. The Section, Applying Principles to Site Selection applies the proposed principles to the case example. The Section, Applying Principles Beyond Site Selection addresses other applications of the proposed principles. The Section, Objections responds to objections. We close (in the Section, Conclusion) by calling for a wider discussion of our proposed principles. One-Sentence Capsule Summary: How should bioethicists navigate the ethics of global bioethics conferencing?

Your robot therapist is not your therapist: understanding the role of AI-powered mental health chatbots.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots have the potential to substantially increase access to affordable and effective mental health services by supplementing the work of clinicians. Their 24/7 availability and accessibility through a mobile phone allow individuals to obtain help whenever and wherever needed, overcoming financial and logistical barriers. Although psychological AI chatbots have the ability to make significant improvements in providing mental health care services, they do not come without ethical and technical challenges. Some major concerns include providing inadequate or harmful support, exploiting vulnerable populations, and potentially producing discriminatory advice due to algorithmic bias. However, it is not always obvious for users to fully understand the nature of the relationship they have with chatbots. There can be significant misunderstandings about the exact purpose of the chatbot, particularly in terms of care expectations, ability to adapt to the particularities of users and responsiveness in terms of the needs and resources/treatments that can be offered. Hence, it is imperative that users are aware of the limited therapeutic relationship they can enjoy when interacting with mental health chatbots. Ignorance or misunderstanding of such limitations or of the role of psychological AI chatbots may lead to a therapeutic misconception (TM) where the user would underestimate the restrictions of such technologies and overestimate their ability to provide actual therapeutic support and guidance. TM raises major ethical concerns that can exacerbate one's mental health contributing to the global mental health crisis. This paper will explore the various ways in which TM can occur particularly through inaccurate marketing of these chatbots, forming a digital therapeutic alliance with them, receiving harmful advice due to bias in the design and algorithm, and the chatbots inability to foster autonomy with patients.

Specific challenges posed by artificial intelligence in research ethics.

Background: The twenty first century is often defined as the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which raises many questions regarding its impact on society. It is already significantly changing many practices in different fields. Research ethics (RE) is no exception. Many challenges, including responsibility, privacy, and transparency, are encountered. Research ethics boards (REB) have been established to ensure that ethical practices are adequately followed during research projects. This scoping review aims to bring out the challenges of AI in research ethics and to investigate if REBs are equipped to evaluate them. Methods: Three electronic databases were selected to collect peer-reviewed articles that fit the inclusion criteria (English or French, published between 2016 and 2021, containing AI, RE, and REB). Two instigators independently reviewed each piece by screening with Covidence and then coding with NVivo. Results: From having a total of 657 articles to review, we were left with a final sample of 28 relevant papers for our scoping review. The selected literature described AI in research ethics (i.e., views on current guidelines, key ethical concept and approaches, key issues of the current state of AI-specific RE guidelines) and REBs regarding AI (i.e., their roles, scope and approaches, key practices and processes, limitations and challenges, stakeholder perceptions). However, the literature often described REBs ethical assessment practices of projects in AI research as lacking knowledge and tools. Conclusion: Ethical reflections are taking a step forward while normative guidelines adaptation to AI's reality is still dawdling. This impacts REBs and most stakeholders involved with AI. Indeed, REBs are not equipped enough to adequately evaluate AI research ethics and require standard guidelines to help them do so.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed. METHODS: Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy. RESULTS: We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced "alternative" and "natural" treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.

Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Population Health and the Public's Role in Its Governance: Perspectives From a Citizen and Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely used in the health care sector. Mainly applied for individualized care, AI is increasingly aimed at population health. This raises important ethical considerations but also calls for responsible governance, considering that this will affect the population. However, the literature points to a lack of citizen participation in the governance of AI in health. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the governance of the ethical and societal implications of AI in population health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the perspectives and attitudes of citizens and experts regarding the ethics of AI in population health, the engagement of citizens in AI governance, and the potential of a digital app to foster citizen engagement. METHODS: We recruited a panel of 21 citizens and experts. Using a web-based survey, we explored their perspectives and attitudes on the ethical issues of AI in population health, the relative role of citizens and other actors in AI governance, and the ways in which citizens can be supported to participate in AI governance through a digital app. The responses of the participants were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: According to the participants, AI is perceived to be already present in population health and its benefits are regarded positively, but there is a consensus that AI has substantial societal implications. The participants also showed a high level of agreement toward involving citizens into AI governance. They highlighted the aspects to be considered in the creation of a digital app to foster this involvement. They recognized the importance of creating an app that is both accessible and transparent. CONCLUSIONS: These results offer avenues for the development of a digital app to raise awareness, to survey, and to support citizens' decision-making regarding the ethical, legal, and social issues of AI in population health.

Digital Therapies (DTx) as New Tools within Physicians' Therapeutic Arsenal: Key Observations to Support their Effective and Responsible Development and Use.

In recent years, there has been a swift rise in the development of digital therapies (DTx). As a result of various technological advances and accessibility to patients, it is now possible to develop and offer therapeutic interventions in a digital manner. These take the form of an evidence-based intervention that is administered in digital form to prevent, manage, or treat a medical condition. What makes DTx significantly different from other types of digital applications or services (e.g., wellness applications) is that they are interventions authorised by regulatory agencies for the treatment, like a drug, of a health condition. Yielding actual therapeutic benefits and being at the crossroads of health and digital means that DTx are subject to both the upsides and downsides of both sectors. Thus, it is of particular interest to look at the facilitators and barriers to be foreseen in the development, assessment, and implementation of DTx. In this article, we will present key observations and outline the main challenges that may be faced in the development and integration of DTx into practice. It is certain that DTx can represent an interesting avenue for physicians to bring their prescribing role into the 21st century. We conclude with broad lessons that the emerging field of DTx can learn from decades of drug industry practice to avoid history repeating itself and to fast-track the development and ethical and optimal use of DTx.

What Makes Artificial Intelligence Exceptional in Health Technology Assessment?

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) may revolutionize the healthcare system, leading to enhance efficiency by automatizing routine tasks and decreasing health-related costs, broadening access to healthcare delivery, targeting more precisely patient needs, and assisting clinicians in their decision-making. For these benefits to materialize, governments and health authorities must regulate AI, and conduct appropriate health technology assessment (HTA). Many authors have highlighted that AI health technologies (AIHT) challenge traditional evaluation and regulatory processes. To inform and support HTA organizations and regulators in adapting their processes to AIHTs, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on the challenges posed by AIHTs in HTA and health regulation. Our research question was: What makes artificial intelligence exceptional in HTA? The current body of literature appears to portray AIHTs as being exceptional to HTA. This exceptionalism is expressed along 5 dimensions: 1) AIHT's distinctive features; 2) their systemic impacts on health care and the health sector; 3) the increased expectations towards AI in health; 4) the new ethical, social and legal challenges that arise from deploying AI in the health sector; and 5) the new evaluative constraints that AI poses to HTA. Thus, AIHTs are perceived as exceptional because of their technological characteristics and potential impacts on society at large. As AI implementation by governments and health organizations carries risks of generating new, and amplifying existing, challenges, there are strong arguments for taking into consideration the exceptional aspects of AIHTs, especially as their impacts on the healthcare system will be far greater than that of drugs and medical devices. As AIHTs begin to be increasingly introduced into the health care sector, there is a window of opportunity for HTA agencies and scholars to consider AIHTs' exceptionalism and to work towards only deploying clinically, economically, socially acceptable AIHTs in the health care system.

Chapitre 4. How Artistic Transgressive Posture May Challenge Research Ethics Norms.

Research-creation (RC), an emergent field at the interface of academic research and creative activities, is challenging norms of responsible conduct of research (RCR) as well as research ethics. Striking differences exist between the perspectives of RC practitioners and members of the ethics community. For example, some RC practitioners openly state that they do not care about ethics and RCR regulations, their rationale being that the aim of arts is to transgress rules and so they disagree with having to comply to ethics requirements. Such statements are particularly interesting from a bioethical standpoint and represent a starting point for exploring how RCR can or should apply to RC practices. Using examples stemming from bio art, our aim here is to unravel this apparently conflictual relationship, and to show that it is not necessarily contradictory. We seek to find common grounds and to disarm eventual critiques from both sides when it comes to promoting responsibility in RC.

Genetic testing, insurance discrimination and medical research: what the United States can learn from peer countries.

While genetic testing may be the gateway to the future of medicine, it also poses challenges for individuals, especially in terms of differentiated treatments on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The fear of unwanted disclosure to insurers and the possibility of genetic discrimination can hamper the recruitment of individuals for clinical research that involves genetic testing. Precision medicine initiatives, such as All of Us, are proliferating in the United States. In order to succeed, however, they must ensure that the millions of Americans recruited to share their genetic data are not penalized with regard to life, disability and long-term insurance coverage. In this Perspective, we discuss several initiatives adopted by countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom and France, that better balance the interests of insurers and research subjects, and explain how the United States might learn from them. We call for regulatory and industry leadership to come together to establish a voluntary moratorium on insurance pricing with the aim of protecting research participants.