Big Data and Machine Learning in Healthcare: Concepts, Technologies, and Opportunities

Photo by Josh Riemer on Unsplash
 Introduction
 With the rapid advancements in neurotechnological machinery and improved analytical insights from machine learning in neuroscience, the availability of big brain data has increased tremendously. Neurological health research is done using digitized brain data.[1] There must be adequate data governance to secure the privacy of subjects participating in brain research and treatments. If not properly regulated, the research methods could lead to significant breaches of the subject’s autonomy and privacy. This paper will address the necessity for neuroprotection laws, which effectively govern the use of big brain data to ensure respect for patient privacy and autonomy.
 Background
 Artificial intelligence and machine learning can be integrated with neuroscience big brain data to drive research studies. This integrative technology allows patterns of electrical activity in neurons to be studied in detail.[2]Specifically, it uses a robotic system which can reason, plan, and exhibit biologically intelligent behavior. Machine learning is a method of computer programming where the code can adapt its behavior based on big brain data.[3] The big brain data is the collection of large amounts of information for the purpose of deciphering patterns through computer analysis using machine learning.[4] The information that these technologies provide is extensive enough to allow a researcher to read a patient’s mind. AI and machine learning technologies work by finding the underlying structure of brain data, which is then described by patterns known as latent factors, eventually resulting in an understanding of the brain’s temporal dynamics.[5]
 Through these technologies, researchers are able to decipher how the human brain computes its performances and thoughts. However, due to the extensive and complex nature of the data processed through AI and machine learning, researchers may gain access to personal information a patient may not wish to reveal. From a bioethical lens, tensions arise in the realm of patient autonomy. Patients are not able to control the transmission of data from their brains that is analyzed by researchers. Governing brain data through laws may enhance the extent of patient privacy in the case where brain data is being used through AI technologies.[6] A responsible approach to governing brain data would require a sophisticated legal structure.
 Analysis
 Impact on Patient Autonomy and Privacy 
 In research pertaining to big brain data, the consent forms do not fully cover the vast amounts of information that is collected. According to research, personal data has become the most sought out commodity to provide content to corporations and the web-based service industry. Unfortunately, data leaks that release private information frequently occur.[7] The storage of an individual’s data on technologies accessible on the internet during research studies makes it vulnerable to leaks, jeopardizing an individual’s privacy. These data leaks may cause the patient to be identified easily, as the degree of information provided by AI technologies are personalized and may be decoded through brain fingerprinting methods.[8]
 There has been an extensive growth in the development and use of AI. It is efficient in providing information to radiologists who diagnose various diseases including brain cancer and psychiatric disease, and AI assists in the delivery of telemedicine.[9] However, the ethical pitfall of reduced patient autonomy must be addressed by analyzing current AI technologies and creating more options for patient preference in how the data may be used. For instance, facial recognition technology[10] commonly used in health care produces more information than listed in common consent forms, threatening to undermine informed consent. Facial recognition software collects extensive data and may disclose more information than a person would prefer to provide despite being a useful tool for diagnosing medical and genetic conditions.[11] In addition, people may not be aware that their images are being used to generate more clinical data for other purposes. It is difficult to guarantee the data is anonymized. Consent requirements must include informing people about the complexity of the potential uses of the data; software developers should maximize patient privacy.[12] Furthermore, there is a “human element” in the use of AI technologies as medical providers control the use and the extent to which data is captured or accessed through the AI technologies.[13] People must understand the scope of the technology and have clear communication with the physician or health care provider about how the medical information will be used. 
 Existing Laws for Brain Data Governance 
 A strict system of defined legal responsibilities of medical providers will ensure a higher degree of patient privacy and autonomy when AI technologies and data from machine learning are used. Governing specific algorithmic data is crucial in safeguarding a patient’s privacy and developing a gold standard treatment protocol following the procurement of the information.[14] Certain AI technologies provide more data than others, and legal boundaries should be established to ensure strong performance, quality control, and scope for patient privacy and autonomy. For instance, currently AI technologies are being used in the realm of intensive neurological care. However, there is a significant level of patient uncertainty about how much control patients have over the data’s uses.[15] Calibrated legal and ethical standards will allow important brain data to be securely governed and monitored.
 Once brain signals are recorded and processed from one individual, the data may be merged with other data in Brain Computer Interface Technology (BCI).[16] To ensure a right and ability to retrieve personal data or pull it from the collection, specific regulations for varying types of data are needed.[17] The importance of consent and patient privacy must be considered through giving patients a transparent view of how brain data is governed.[18] The legal system must address discriminatory issues and risks to patients whose data is used in studies. Laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CCPA) can serve as effective models to protect aggregated data. These laws govern consumer information and ensure the compliance when personal data is collected.[19] California voters recently approved expansion of the CCPA to health data. The Washington Privacy Act, which would have provided rights to access, change, and withdraw personal data, failed to pass. Other states should improve privacy as well,[20] although a federal bill would be preferable. Scientists at the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences argue for data security to be governed in a manner that balances patient privacy and autonomy with the commercial interests of researchers.[21] The balance could be achieved through privacy protections like those in the Washington Privacy Act. Although the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides an overall framework to deter the likelihood of dangers to patient protection and privacy, more thorough laws are warranted to combat pervasive data transfer and analysis that technology has brought to the health care industry.[22] Breaches of patient privacy under current HIPAA regulations include releasing patient information to a reporter without their consent and sending HIV data to a patient’s employer without consent.[23] HIPAA does not cover information being shared with outside contractors who do not have an agreement with technology companies to keep patient data confidential. HIPAA regulations also do not always address blatant breaches on patient data confidentiality.[24] Patients must be provided with methods to monitor the data being analyzed to be able to view the extent of private information being generated via AI technologies. In health research, the medical purposes of better diagnosis, earlier detection of diseases, or prevention are ethical justifications for the use of the data if it was collected with permission, the person understood and approved the uses of the data, and the data was deidentified.
 A standard governance framework is required in providing the fairest system of care to patients who allow their brain data to be examined. Informed consent in the neuroscience field could reaffirm the privacy and autonomy of patients by ensuring that they understand the type of information collected. Laws also could protect data after a patient’s death. Malpractice in the scope of brain data could give people a cause of action critical in safeguarding patient’s rights. Data breach lawsuits will become common but generally do not cover deidentified data that becomes part of big data collection. A more synchronized approach to the collection and consent process will encourage an understanding of how big data is used to diagnose and treat patients. Some altruistic people may even be more likely to consent if they know the largescale data collection is helpful to treat and diagnose people. Others should have the ability to opt out of sharing neurological data, especially when there is not certainty surrounding deidentification.[25]
 Conclusion
 Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies have the potential to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of people globally by extracting and aggregating brain data specific to individuals. However, the secure use of the data is necessary to build trust between care providers and patients, as well as in balancing the bioethical principles of beneficence and patient autonomy. We must ensure the highest quality of care to patients, while protecting their privacy, informed consent, and clinical trust. More sophis

Purpose (stating the main purposes and research question) Anthropogenic resource use contributes to pollution, violent conflict over scarce resources, loss of biodiversity, and diminished quality of life for humans. Moreover, the “safe” amount of carbon dioxide—350 parts per million—has been exceeded. The health care industry is responsible for 4–5% of total world emissions,[i] which is similar to the global food sector.[ii] Health care carbon emissions come from health care infrastructures, supply chains and health care delivery. Increasingly, health care delivery is reliant on technologies which require the use of artificial intelligence to provide supportive care, such as triage algorithms, electronic patient records, and robotics.[iii] While these technological innovations have advanced health care significantly, they also contribute to the negative effects on the environment, among others, through carbon emissions. The environmental impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care—in particular—are understudied. This research seeks to fill this gap. Methods Our team ran an exploratory search in Scopus and PubMed to identify studies that integrate environmental sustainability, artificial intelligence, and health. Results Our research initially yielded 735 studies. 77 of these studies focused on an environmental concern of a health technology or AI-application in a health care setting, but most of the articles in this subset addressed lowering energy consumption of a specific technology, such as a sensor or monitoring technology. Conclusions While there have been studies looking at AI in health care; sustainability in AI; and sustainability in health care, little attention has been paid to the interface between all three. [i] Karliner, J., Slotterback, S., Boyd, R., Ashby, B., & Steele, K. 2019. Health Care’s Climate Footprint: How the Health Sector Contributes to the Global Climate Crisis and Opportunities for Action Healthcare Without HarmARUP; September. [ii] Pichler, P. P., Jaccard, I. S., Weisz, U., & Weisz, H. 2019 International Comparison of Health Care Carbon Footprints, Environmental Research Letters 14, no. 6: 064004. [iii] Khaliq, Abdul, Ali Waqas, Qasim Ali Nisar, Shahbaz Haider, and Zunaina Asghar. 2022. Application of AI and robotics in hospitality sector: A resource gain and resource loss perspective. Technology in Society 68: 101807.

Diabetes is a long-term health condition that impacts millions of people worldwide, and correct and timely diagnosis is required to manage it effectively. In the present research study, we propose an improved model of diabetes prediction based on the usage of Big Data Analytics (BDA) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms for enhancing the predictability of diabetes. Our research is based on the ideas developed in the reference paper, where the application of BDA in enabling healthcare decisionmaking was proposed. With the inclusion of the usage of advanced ML algorithms like Decision Trees, Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), we enhance predictability for the diagnosis of diabetes. We employed a comprehensive healthcare dataset with various health metrics, including blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI, smoking, and physical activity. The data was heavily preprocessed, ranging from feature engineering to normalization, to get better model performance. All the models were trained and tested on accuracy, precision, recall, and ROC-AUC. Among the models, Random Forest and ANN were better with higher accuracy, detecting diabetic patients at risk effectively. Our model not only increases prediction accuracy but also facilitates scalability with Big Data technology and practices. The ANN model, in particular, proved effective in finding complex patterns within the data, yielding a reliable solution towards real-time diabetes prediction. This effort illustrates the potential of integrating BDA and ML in healthcare for data-driven decision-making and supporting early diagnosis and management of diabetes. The model is deployed as an interactive user-friendly web application using Streamlet, where users can input health indicators and receive predictions from different models. Through its interactive interface, it facilitates healthcare professionals and patients by offering themreal-time information, thereby ultimately improving diabetes management and patient care.

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal

Introduction Big data is defined as the amount of data that once organized and analysed, can make a value, make decisions, make predictions and discover patterns in order to reduce costs, avoid risks and optimize services. Machine Learning (ML) is a field of artificial intelligence and is characterized as a method of machine learning, which uses algorithms that learn from data analysis, allowing computers to find patterns, draw conclusions and make predictions. These tools can be used in different areas of human knowledge, particularly in the health sector which are generated daily a huge amount of information, allowing the creation of algorithms that learn and gain understanding to assist in various clinical practices. Objectives The purpose of this paper is to analyse the benefits of Big Data and Machine Learning in providing overall health care. Methodology We conducted a review of the scientific literature published in the electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar, according to specific criteria, using keywords: Big Data”, “Machine Learning". Results In the field of oncology (skin cancer, breast, lung, leukaemia) ML and Big Data have contributed to early diagnosis of different pathologies and their evolution, as well as optimizing therapies. In ophthalmology (diabetic retinopathy and congenital cataract) has shown high efficacy in rapid diagnosis and appropriate treatment crucial to prevent the progress of the disease. The tested algorithms achieved very favourable results in cases of Parkinson’s and cardiovascular diseases. In the pharmaceutical industry these computer and digital tools have contributed to the optimization of clinical trials, genome sequencing of tumours to then identify and develop specific drugs to fight it. Conclusion Advances of MIL and Big data are notorious and development opportunities are immense and can come to revolutionize tasks such as diagnosis, treatment and health care in general.

BackgroundArtificial intelligence technology can be applied in several aspects of healthcare delivery and its integration into the Nigerian healthcare value chain is expected to bring about new opportunities. This study aimed at assessing the knowledge and perception of healthcare professionals in Nigeria regarding the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the health sector.MethodsA cross-sectional study was undertaken amongst healthcare professionals in Nigeria with the use of a questionnaire. Data were collected across the six geopolitical zones in the Country using a stratified multistage sampling method. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were undertaken for the data obtained.ResultsFemale participants (55.7%) were slightly higher in proportion compared to the male respondents (44.3%). Pharmacists accounted for 27.7% of the participants, and this was closely followed by medical doctors (24.5%) and nurses (19.3%). The majority of the respondents (57.2%) reported good knowledge regarding artificial intelligence and machine learning, about a third of the participants (32.2%) were of average knowledge, and 10.6% of the sample had poor knowledge. More than half of the respondents (57.8%) disagreed with the notion that the adoption of artificial intelligence in the Nigerian healthcare sector could result in job losses. Two-thirds of the participants (66.7%) were of the view that the integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare will augment human intelligence. Three-quarters (77%) of the respondents agreed that the use of machine learning in Nigerian healthcare could facilitate efficient service delivery.ConclusionThis study provides novel insights regarding healthcare professionals' knowledge and perception with respect to the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in healthcare. The emergent findings from this study can guide government and policymakers in decision-making as regards deployment of artificial intelligence and machine learning for healthcare delivery.

The healthcare industry benefits from privacy-preserving machine learning (PPML) because it provides a groundbreaking solution to protect patient privacy while enabling complex data analysis. The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in healthcare requires absolute protection of sensitive patient information. The model training process in PPML utilizes federated learning, combined with differential privacy, homomorphic encryption, and secure multi-party computation, to enable collaborative model training without exposing raw data. The methods keep data on local servers, which reduces the chance of breaches while supporting analytical performance. Homomorphic encryption enables secure computations on encrypted data to protect confidential medical information, and differential privacy adds noise to protect individual identities. The current PPML solutions present significant technical obstacles, including inefficient computation, restricted scalability, and integration complications with healthcare IT systems. The healthcare sector requires the ability to process extensive real-time medical information while supporting system interoperability. The healthcare industry is investigating blockchain technology to enhance data security through immutable records that provide verifiable evidence. The healthcare industry should adopt PPML as its essential framework for conducting secure and ethical data analysis, as it incorporates artificial intelligence. This chapter examines the evolving PPML healthcare environment by discussing its methods, along with their advantages and the essential obstacles that need to be resolved to support its clinical and research implementation.

According to popular belief, big data and machine learning provide a wholly novel approach to science that has the potential to revolutionise scientific progress and will ultimately lead to the ‘end of theory’. Proponents of this view argue that advanced algorithms are able to mine vast amounts of data relating to a given problem without any prior knowledge and that we do not need to concern ourselves with causality, as correlation is sufficient for handling complex issues. Consequently, the human contribution to scientific progress is deemed to be non-essential and replaceable. We, however, following the position most commonly represented in the philosophy of science, argue that the need for human expertise remains. Based on an analysis of big data and machine learning methods in two case studies—skin cancer detection and protein folding—we show that expert knowledge is essential and inherent in the application of these methods. Drawing on this analysis, we establish a classification of the different kinds of expert knowledge that are involved in the application of big data and machine learning in scientific contexts. We address the ramifications of a human-driven expert knowledge approach to big data and machine learning for scientific practice and the discussion about the role of theory. Finally, we show that the ways in which big data and machine learning both influence and are influenced by scientific methodology involve continuous conceptual shifts rather than a rigid paradigm change.

Patients undergoing outpatient radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT) frequently require acute care (emergency department evaluation or hospitalization). Machine learning (ML) may guide interventions to reduce this risk. There are limited prospective studies investigating the clinical impact of ML in health care. The objective of this study was to determine whether ML can identify high-risk patients and direct mandatory twice-weekly clinical evaluation to reduce acute care visits during treatment. During this single-institution randomized quality improvement study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04277650), 963 outpatient adult courses of RT and CRT started from January 7 to June 30, 2019, were evaluated by an ML algorithm. Among these, 311 courses identified by ML as high risk (> 10% risk of acute care during treatment) were randomized to standard once-weekly clinical evaluation (n = 157) or mandatory twice-weekly evaluation (n = 154). Both arms allowed additional evaluations on the basis of clinician discretion. The primary end point was the rate of acute care visits during RT. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) and decile calibration plots. Twice-weekly evaluation reduced rates of acute care during treatment from 22.3% to 12.3% (difference, -10.0%; 95% CI, -18.3 to -1.6; relative risk, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.332 to 0.924; P = .02). Low-risk patients had a 2.7% acute care rate. Model discrimination was good in high- and low-risk patients undergoing standard once-weekly evaluation (AUC, 0.851). In this prospective randomized study, ML accurately triaged patients undergoing RT and CRT, directing clinical management with reduced acute care rates versus standard of care. This prospective study demonstrates the potential benefit of ML in health care and offers opportunities to enhance care quality and reduce health care costs.

BackgroundThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) holds substantial potential to alter diagnostics and treatment in health care settings. However, public attitudes toward AI, including trust and risk perception, are key to its ethical and effective adoption. Despite growing interest, empirical research on the factors shaping public support for AI in health care (particularly in large-scale, representative contexts) remains limited.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate public attitudes toward AI in patient health care, focusing on how AI attributes (autonomy, costs, reliability, and transparency) shape perceptions of support, risk, and personalized care. In addition, it examines the moderating role of sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, educational level, migration background, and subjective health status) in these evaluations. Our study offers novel insights into the relative importance of AI system characteristics for public attitudes and acceptance.MethodsWe conducted a factorial vignette experiment with a probability-based survey of 3030 participants from Germany’s general population. Respondents were presented with hypothetical scenarios involving AI applications in diagnosis and treatment in a hospital setting. Linear regression models assessed the relative influence of AI attributes on the dependent variables (support, risk perception, and personalized care), with additional subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsMean values between 4.2 and 4.4 on a 1-7 scale indicate a generally neutral to slightly negative stance toward AI integration in terms of general support, risk perception, and personalized care expectations, with responses spanning the full scale from strong support to strong opposition. Among the 4 dimensions, reliability emerges as the most influential factor (percentage of explained variance [EV] of up to 10.5%). Respondents expect AI to not only prevent errors but also exceed current reliability standards while strongly disapproving of nontraceable systems (transparency is another important factor, percentage of EV of up to 4%). Costs and autonomy play a comparatively minor role (percentage of EVs of up to 1.5% and 1.3%), with preferences favoring collaborative AI systems over autonomous ones, and higher costs generally leading to rejection. Heterogeneity analysis reveals limited sociodemographic differences, with education and migration background influencing attitudes toward transparency and autonomy, and gender differences primarily affecting cost-related perceptions. Overall, attitudes do not substantially differ between AI applications in diagnosis versus treatment.ConclusionsOur study fills a critical research gap by identifying the key factors that shape public trust and acceptance of AI in health care, particularly reliability, transparency, and patient-centered approaches. Our findings provide evidence-based recommendations for policy makers, health care providers, and AI developers to enhance trust and accountability, key concerns often overlooked in system development and real-world applications. The study highlights the need for targeted policy and educational initiatives to support the responsible integration of AI in patient care.

BackgroundThe exponential growth of publications regarding the application of machine learning (ML) tools in medicine highlights the significant potential for ML to revolutionize the field. Despite the multitude of literature surrounding this topic, there are limited publications addressing the implementation and feasibility of ML models in clinical practice. Currently, Machine Learning Operations (MLOps), a set of practices designed to deploy and maintain ML models in production, is used in various information technology and industrial settings. However, the MLOps pipeline is not well researched in medical settings, where multiple barriers exist to implementing ML pipelines into practice.ObjectiveThis study aims to detail how MLOps is implemented in health care and propose a maturity framework for the health care implementations.MethodsA scoping review search was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Results were synthesized using the 3-stage basic qualitative content analysis. We searched 4 databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) to include any studies that involved proof of concept or real-world implementation of MLOps in health care. Studies not reported in English were excluded.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included in this scoping review. The MLOps workflow identified within the studies included (1) data extraction (19/19 studies), (2) data preparation and engineering (18/19 studies), (3) model training (19/19 studies), (4) measured ML metrics and model evaluation (17/19 studies), (5) model validation and test in production (14/19 studies), (6) model serving and deployment (15/19 studies), (7) continuous monitoring (14/19 studies), and (8) continual learning (13/19 studies). We proposed a 3-stage MLOps maturity framework for health care based on existing studies in the field, that is, low (5/19 studies), partial (1/19 studies), and full maturity (13/19 studies). There were 8/19 studies that discussed ethical, legislative, and stakeholder considerations for MLOps implementations in health care settings.ConclusionsWe investigated the implementation of MLOps in health care with a corresponding maturity framework. It is evident that only a limited number of studies reported the implementation of ML in health care contexts. Hence, it is imperative that we shift our focus toward creating an environment that supports the development of ML health care applications, such as improving existing data infrastructure, and engaging partners to support the development of MLOps applications. Specifically, we can include patients, policymakers, and health care professionals in the creation and implementation of ML applications. One of the main limitations includes the varying quality of each extracted study in terms of how the MLOps implementation was presented. Hence, it was difficult to verify the presence and discuss in depth all steps of the MLOps workflow for each study. Furthermore, due to the inherent nature of a scoping review protocol, there may be a compromise on an in-depth discussion of each step within the MLOps workflow.

This article presents a mapping review of the literature concerning the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. The goal of this review is to summarise current debates and identify open questions for future research. Five literature databases were searched (Scopus, Google Scholar, Philpapers, Web of Science, Pub Med), in April 2019, to support the following research question: “how can the primary ethical risks presented by AI-health be categorised, and what issues must policymakers, regulators and developers consider in order to be ‘ethically mindful?’”. A series of screening stages were carried out—for example, removing articles that focused on digital health in general (e.g. data sharing, data access, data privacy, surveillance/nudging, consent, ownership of health data, evidence of efficacy)—yielding a total of 156 papers that were included in the review.We find that ethical issues can be (a) epistemic, related to misguided, inconclusive or inscrutable evidence; (b) normative, related to unfair outcomes and transformative effectives; or (c) related to traceability. We further find that these ethical issues arise at six levels of abstraction: individual, interpersonal, group, institutional, and societal or sectoral. Finally, we outline a number of considerations for policymakers and regulators, mapping these to existing literature, and categorising each as epistemic, normative or traceability-related and at the relevant level of abstraction. This article contributes to the debate on AI in health care by offering a comprehensive analysis of the relevant literature, focusing on the ethical implications for individuals, interpersonal relationships, groups, institutions, societies and the health sector as a whole. Our goal is to inform policymakers, regulators and developers of what they must consider if they are to enable health and care systems to capitalise on the dual advantage of ethical AI; maximising the opportunities to cut costs, improve care, and improve the efficiency of health and care systems, whilst proactively avoiding the potential harms. We argue that if action is not swiftly taken in this regard, a new ‘AI winter’ could occur due to chilling effects related to a loss of public trust in the benefits of AI for health care.

What sets AI systems and AI-powered medical robots apart from all other forms of advanced medical technology is their ability to operate at least to some degree autonomously from the human health care practitioner and to use machine-learning to generate new, often unforeseen, analysis and predictions. This poses challenges under the current framework of laws, regulations, and ethical guidelines applicable to health care in South Africa. The article outlines these challenges and sets out guiding principles for a normative framework to regulate the use of AI in health care. The article examines three key areas for legal reform in relation to AI in health care. First, it proposes that the regulatory framework for the oversight of software as a medical device needs to be updated to develop frameworks for adequately regulating the use of such new technologies. Secondly, it argues that the present HPCSA guidelines for health care practitioners in South Africa adopt an unduly restrictive approach centred in the outmoded semantics of telemedicine. This may discourage technological innovation that could improve access to health care for all, and as such the guidelines are inconsistent with the national digital health strategy. Thirdly, it examines the common law principles of fault-based liability for medical negligence, which could prove inadequate to provide patients and users of new technologies with redress for harm where fault cannot clearly be attributed to the healthcare practitioner. It argues that consideration should be given to developing a statutory scheme for strict liability, together with mandatory insurance, and appropriate reform of product liability pertaining to technology developers and manufacturers. These legal reforms should not be undertaken without also developing a coherent, human-rights centred policy framework for the ethical use of AI, robotics, and related technologies in health care in South Africa.

New wound care HTC launches

BIG DATA AND MACHINE LEARNING IN HEALTHCARE: REVOLUTIONIZING PATIENT OUTCOMES THROUGH ADVANCED ANALYTICS