Clinician and CDSS as Hybrid
Intelligence
In our approach to clinical decision-making, we contend that clinical
decision-making is, in practice, a complex and intricate reasoning
process. We argue that CRSS can play a role in or even improve this
reasoning process as a clinical reasoning support system,provided that the system is reliable, that its outcomes are explainable
in relevant respects, and that an empirical link can be established
between the algorithm and the individual patient. If these requirements
are met, clinicians can combine their human intelligence with the
artificial intelligence of a CRSS into a hybrid
intelligence,30, 11As rules-based systems and
data-driven have different capacities, Steels and Lopez de Mantaraz
(2018) suggest that “The full potential of AI will only be realized
with a combination of these two approaches, meaning a form of hybrid
AI.” (ibid. 488) This is a different type of hybrid than we have in
mind here. in which both have clearly delineated and complementary
tasks. To achieve this, CRSSs must be given highly standardized and
trainable epistemic tasks. For example, CRSSs can provide accurate and
precise classifications based on their ability to detect patterns that
are not discernible by humans. Or they can help search the database for
the most suitable procedure, supported by the most up to date scientific
evidence. Machine learning algorithms make use of large amounts of data,
and therefore are able to establish similarities and correlations
between (sub)groups of patients and rare cases. The task of clinicians
is to incorporate the outcomes of CRSS into medical reasoning, first of
all by hypothesizing about possible causes of the patient’s signs and
symptoms, and secondly by selecting the appropriate test to confirm or
reject this hypothesis. In addition, clinicians are tasked with
determining what data is relevant, collecting that data and entering it
into the CRSS, such that the system can use it. In short, the task of a
clinician is to ask questions that the CRSS can answer. Moreover,
clinicians are tasked with interpreting, integrating and contextualizing
the outcome of the CRSS, in order to utilize it for empirical tasks in
practice.
Additionally, we have defended that clinical experts need to be closely
involved in the development of AI systems. Developing a CRSS that
facilitates clinical reasoning in practice means that clinicians, as
future users, need to be involved at an early stage of development. They
need to ensure that the system is designed to answer questions that are
relevant to the clinical reasoning process, and that the data that is
collected and used as training data is relevant and suitable to their
patient population (e.g., that a CRSS to diagnose skin cancer is not
just trained on using data of patients with white
skin31 and that the outcomes generated by the CRSS are
interpretable. This requires that, along with an advice, the system
indicates what factors contributed to arriving at that advice, allowing
the user to evaluate whether these factors are indeed medically
plausible and applicable to the current patient. In addition, medical
education should prepare clinicians to perform the new epistemic tasks
required to use CRSS in clinical practice. For example by teaching
students how data is collected and processed and by teaching them how to
evaluate whether the context in which the data is collected is relevant
to the intended application.
In conclusion, a CRSS can aid clinical decision-making and possibly
improve it, if clinicians use it in an epistemologically responsible
manner. Both the system and their users need to be equipped for this.
Clinicians need to develop new cognitive skills necessary to perform
specific epistemic tasks related to the use of CRSS. For example,
establishing an empirical link between the model and the individual
patient, asking appropriate questions (that can be answered by the
system), collecting and assessing the required data and evaluating the
outcome. CRSS must not only be reliable, in the sense that the
performance is scientifically proven to be as good or better than that
of medical experts. It must also provide the information necessary to
enable the clinician to perform the necessary epistemic activities, in a
way that supports the performance of these activities. This entails, for
example, to provide insight in the data set that is used to train the
algorithm (e.g., which characteristics of patients were included in the
data), as well as a precise description of the task that the algorithm
is trained to perform (e.g., to use images of skin lesions for
identifying melanoma); to give information about the reliability of the
outcome (such as confidence intervals) and; to give information about
the procedure with which the algorithm arrives at the outcome (i.e. the
weightings of the different pieces of information).
If developers and users succeed in meeting the requirements that allow
them to combine human and artificial intelligence into hybrid
intelligence, CRSS holds great promises for health care by improving the
accuracy, speed and consistency of clinical decision-making.