Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:This review explores the bioethical implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and in ophthalmology. AI, which was first introduced in the 1950s, is defined as "the machine simulation of human mental reasoning, decision making, and behavior". The increased power of computing, expansion of storage capacity, and compilation of medical big data helped the AI implementation surge in medical practice and research. Ophthalmology is a leading medical specialty in applying AI in screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The first Food and Drug Administration approved autonomous diagnostic system served to diagnose and classify diabetic retinopathy. Other ophthalmic conditions such as age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, retinopathy of prematurity, and congenital cataract, among others, implemented AI too. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To review the contemporary literature of the bioethical issues of AI in medicine and ophthalmology, classify ethical issues in medical AI, and suggest possible standardizations of ethical frameworks for AI implementation. METHODS:Keywords were searched on Google Scholar and PubMed between October 2019 and April 2020. The results were reviewed, cross-referenced, and summarized. A total of 284 references including articles, books, book chapters, and regulatory reports and statements were reviewed, and those that were relevant were cited in the paper. RESULTS:Most sources that studied the use of AI in medicine explored the ethical aspects. Bioethical challenges of AI implementation in medicine were categorized into 6 main categories. These include machine training ethics, machine accuracy ethics, patient-related ethics, physician-related ethics, shared ethics, and roles of regulators. CONCLUSIONS:There are multiple stakeholders in the ethical issues surrounding AI in medicine and ophthalmology. Attention to the various aspects of ethics related to AI is important especially with the expanding use of AI. Solutions of ethical problems are envisioned to be multifactorial.

Solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients were not included in the COVID-19 vaccine trials that have justified vaccine administration to millions worldwide and will be critical to ending the pandemic. The risks of COVID-19 for SOT candidates and recipients combined with data about this population's response to other vaccines has led to transplant centers recommending vaccination for their candidates and recipients in accordance with guidance from major transplant organizations. Relevant ethics considerations include: weighing the low risk of vaccination causing transplant complications against potentially limited antibody response of vaccines for transplant recipients; the equitable distribution of vaccines among vulnerable populations; the duty to steward and respect organs as limited resources; the duty to support vaccination; and patient autonomy. Vaccinated transplant patients and candidates should also consider participating in research studies to better understand the efficacy and potential long-term risks in this patient population. There are difficult scenarios, like timing transplant after second vaccine dose, when to administer the second dose to a partially vaccinated candidate who gets an organ match, whether to vaccinate a recent transplant recipient with low exposure risk and which vaccine to use. Here we provide ethics considerations for vaccinating different groups within the transplant population.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the difficulty of the US public health system to respond effectively to vulnerable subpopulations, causing disproportionate rates of morbidity and mortality. New York Haredi-Orthodox Jewish communities represent a group that have been heavily impacted by Covid-19. Little research has examined their experience or perceptions toward Covid-19 and vaccines. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study to explore the experience of Covid-19 among Haredim. Paper surveys were self-administered between December 2020 and January 2021 in Haredi neighborhood pediatricians' offices in Brooklyn, New York. Of 102 respondents, 43% reported either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral or antibody test. Participants trusted their physicians, Orthodox medical organizations, and rabbinic leaders for medical information. Knowledge of Covid-19 transmission and risk was good (69% answered ≥ 4/6 questions correctly). Only 12% of respondents would accept a Covid-19 vaccine, 41% were undecided and 47% were strongly hesitant. Independent predictors of strong vaccine hesitancy included believing natural infection to be better than vaccination for developing immunity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-14.86), agreement that prior infection provides a path toward resuming communal life (aOR 4.10; 95% CI 1.22-13.77), and pandemic-related loss of trust in physicians (aOR 5.01; 95% CI 1.05-23.96). The primary disseminators of health information for self-protective religious communities should be stakeholders who understand these groups' unique health needs. In communities with significant Covid-19 experience, vaccination messaging may need to be tailored toward protecting infection-naïve individuals and boosting natural immunity against emerging variants.