人工智能干预癌症筛查:平衡公平和成本效益。

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Cristina Roadevin, Harry Hill
{"title":"人工智能干预癌症筛查:平衡公平和成本效益。","authors":"Cristina Roadevin, Harry Hill","doi":"10.1136/jme-2025-110707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper examines the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into cancer screening programmes, focusing on the associated equity challenges and resource allocation implications. While AI technologies promise significant benefits-such as improved diagnostic accuracy, shorter waiting times, reduced reliance on radiographers, and overall productivity gains and cost-effectiveness-current interventions disproportionately favour those already engaged in screening. This neglect of non-attenders, who face the worst cancer outcomes, exacerbates existing health disparities and undermines the core objectives of screening programmes.Using breast cancer screening as a case study, we argue that AI interventions must not only improve health outcomes and demonstrate cost-effectiveness but also address inequities by prioritising non-attenders. To this end, we advocate for the design and implementation of cost-saving AI interventions. Such interventions could enable reinvestment into strategies specifically aimed at increasing engagement among non-attenders, thereby reducing disparities in cancer outcomes. Decision modelling is presented as a practical method to identify and evaluate these cost-saving interventions. Furthermore, the paper calls for greater transparency in decision-making, urging policymakers to explicitly account for the equity implications and opportunity costs associated with AI investments. Only then will they be able to balance the promise of technological innovation with the ethical imperative to improve health outcomes for all, particularly underserved populations. Methods such as distributional cost-effectiveness analysis are recommended to quantify and address disparities, ensuring more equitable healthcare delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI interventions in cancer screening: balancing equity and cost-effectiveness.\",\"authors\":\"Cristina Roadevin, Harry Hill\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2025-110707\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper examines the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into cancer screening programmes, focusing on the associated equity challenges and resource allocation implications. While AI technologies promise significant benefits-such as improved diagnostic accuracy, shorter waiting times, reduced reliance on radiographers, and overall productivity gains and cost-effectiveness-current interventions disproportionately favour those already engaged in screening. This neglect of non-attenders, who face the worst cancer outcomes, exacerbates existing health disparities and undermines the core objectives of screening programmes.Using breast cancer screening as a case study, we argue that AI interventions must not only improve health outcomes and demonstrate cost-effectiveness but also address inequities by prioritising non-attenders. To this end, we advocate for the design and implementation of cost-saving AI interventions. Such interventions could enable reinvestment into strategies specifically aimed at increasing engagement among non-attenders, thereby reducing disparities in cancer outcomes. Decision modelling is presented as a practical method to identify and evaluate these cost-saving interventions. Furthermore, the paper calls for greater transparency in decision-making, urging policymakers to explicitly account for the equity implications and opportunity costs associated with AI investments. Only then will they be able to balance the promise of technological innovation with the ethical imperative to improve health outcomes for all, particularly underserved populations. Methods such as distributional cost-effectiveness analysis are recommended to quantify and address disparities, ensuring more equitable healthcare delivery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110707\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110707","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究了人工智能(AI)与癌症筛查计划的整合,重点关注相关的公平挑战和资源分配影响。虽然人工智能技术有望带来显著的好处,例如提高诊断准确性、缩短等待时间、减少对放射技师的依赖、提高总体生产率和成本效益,但目前的干预措施不成比例地偏向于那些已经从事筛查的人。这种对面临最严重癌症后果的非参与者的忽视,加剧了现有的健康差距,破坏了筛查规划的核心目标。以乳腺癌筛查为例,我们认为人工智能干预不仅必须改善健康结果并展示成本效益,还必须通过优先考虑非参与者来解决不平等问题。为此,我们提倡设计和实施节省成本的人工智能干预措施。这些干预措施可以使再投资成为专门针对增加非参与者参与的战略,从而减少癌症结果的差异。决策模型是一种实用的方法来识别和评估这些节省成本的干预措施。此外,该论文呼吁提高决策的透明度,敦促政策制定者明确考虑与人工智能投资相关的股权影响和机会成本。只有这样,他们才能在技术创新的前景与改善所有人,特别是服务不足人口的健康结果的道德要求之间取得平衡。建议采用分配成本效益分析等方法来量化和解决差距,确保更公平的医疗保健服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AI interventions in cancer screening: balancing equity and cost-effectiveness.

This paper examines the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into cancer screening programmes, focusing on the associated equity challenges and resource allocation implications. While AI technologies promise significant benefits-such as improved diagnostic accuracy, shorter waiting times, reduced reliance on radiographers, and overall productivity gains and cost-effectiveness-current interventions disproportionately favour those already engaged in screening. This neglect of non-attenders, who face the worst cancer outcomes, exacerbates existing health disparities and undermines the core objectives of screening programmes.Using breast cancer screening as a case study, we argue that AI interventions must not only improve health outcomes and demonstrate cost-effectiveness but also address inequities by prioritising non-attenders. To this end, we advocate for the design and implementation of cost-saving AI interventions. Such interventions could enable reinvestment into strategies specifically aimed at increasing engagement among non-attenders, thereby reducing disparities in cancer outcomes. Decision modelling is presented as a practical method to identify and evaluate these cost-saving interventions. Furthermore, the paper calls for greater transparency in decision-making, urging policymakers to explicitly account for the equity implications and opportunity costs associated with AI investments. Only then will they be able to balance the promise of technological innovation with the ethical imperative to improve health outcomes for all, particularly underserved populations. Methods such as distributional cost-effectiveness analysis are recommended to quantify and address disparities, ensuring more equitable healthcare delivery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信