BRIDGING THE AI–REAL WORLD GAP IN MEDICINE: TOWARD CLINICALLY RELEVANT, EQUITABLE, AND SCALABLE SOLUTIONS
Description
Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping medicine across diagnostic imaging, predictive analytics, clinical decision support, and personalized therapeutics (Topol, 2019; Jiang et al., 2017). Yet a persistent “AI–Real World Gap” separates algorithmic breakthroughs from routine clinical use (Kelly et al., 2019). This gap reflects deficits in data representativeness, workflow integration, interpretability, scalability, and ethical trustworthiness (Rajpurkar et al., 2022). We propose a translational framework that links data-driven discovery to frontline deployment through five pillars: (1) Data Diversity & Curation—multi-institutional datasets and inclusion of underrepresented populations to mitigate bias and improve fairness (Adamson & Smith, 2018); (2) Human–AI Collaboration—clinicians as co-developers to embed domain expertise and align with real tasks (Mesko & Győrffy, 2020); (3) Interoperability & Infrastructure—use of standards such as FHIR and cloud APIs for secure, scalable exchange (Mandel et al., 2016); (4) Ethical & Regulatory Alignment—transparency, accountability, and compliance with evolving guidance, including FDA GMLP (U.S. FDA, 2021); and (5) Continuous Learning & Evaluation—prospective validation, post-market surveillance, real-time feedback, and adaptive retraining (Wiens et al., 2019). Equity is central. Historic data inequities produce algorithmic disparities that disproportionately burden minority and low-income populations (Obermeyer et al., 2019). Participatory design—engaging patients, public health stakeholders, and community organizations from problem definition through dissemination—builds trust and aligns tools with social determinants of health. Scalability remains the final frontier: systems that excel in pilots often underperform beyond single sites or narrow specialties (Shortliffe & Sepúlveda, 2018). We outline a layered approach that integrates adaptive models with digital health ecosystems—telemedicine, wearables, and real-time analytics—to create feedback loops between prediction, intervention, and outcome measurement, enabling population-level monitoring, early detection, and cost-efficient coordination. Anchored in initiatives such as the Electronic Prescription Authentication System (EPAX™) and the SPEED Initiative (Sports, Physical health, Education, Empowerment, Development), this agenda demonstrates how AI can transition from controlled experiments to transformative practice. Bridging the AI–real world divide demands interdisciplinary collaboration across computer science, medicine, policy, and ethics with the shared aim of improving outcomes while safeguarding human values.
Files
4 BRIDGING THE AI–REAL WORLD GAP IN MEDICINE TOWARD CLINICALLY RELEVANT, EQUITABLE, AND SCALABLE SOLUTIONS.pdf
Files
(1.3 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:455010018cba651bce8fc290dd1eece5
|
1.3 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- 1. Abràmoff, M. D., Lavin, P. T., Birch, M., Shah, N., & Folk, J. C., Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices. NPJ Digital Medicine, 2018; 1(1): 39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-018-0040-6
- 2. Adamson, A. S., & Smith, A., Machine learning and health care disparities in dermatology. JAMA Dermatology, 2018; 154(11): 1247–1248. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.2348
- 3. Amann, J., Blasimme, A., Vayena, E., Frey, D., & Madai, V. I., Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2020; 20(1): 310. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
- 4. Ash, J. S., Berg, M., & Coiera, E., Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2004; 11(2): 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1471
- 5. Aspden, P., Wolcott, J., Bootman, J. L., & Cronenwett, L. R. (Eds.)., Preventing medication errors. National Academies Press, 2007.
- 6. Berwick, D. M., Nolan, T. W., & Whittington, J., The triple aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Affairs, 2008; 27(3): 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
- 7. Blease, C., Kaptchuk, T. J., Bernstein, M. H., Mandl, K. D., Halamka, J. D., & DesRoches, C. M., Artificial intelligence and the future of primary care: Exploratory qualitative study of UK general practitioners' views. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019; 21(3): e12802. https://doi.org/10.2196/12802
- 8. Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B. T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P., Work system design for patient safety: The SEIPS model. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2006; 15(suppl 1): i50–i58. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015842
- 9. Chen, I. Y., Joshi, S., Ghassemi, M., Treating health disparities with artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 2020; 26: 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0649-2
- 10. Coiera, E., & Ash, J., The unintended consequences of health information technology revisited. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 2019; 28(1): 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677903
- 11. Desautels, T., Calvert, J., Hoffman, J., Jay, M., Kerem, Y., Shieh, L., … & Das, R., Prediction of sepsis in the intensive care unit with minimal electronic health record data: A machine learning approach. JMIR Medical Informatics, 2016; 4(3): e28. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.5909
- 12. Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S., Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 2017; 542(7639): 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056
- 13. FDA, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Action Plan. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2021.
- 14. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F., Implementation research: A synthesis of literature. University of South Florida, 2005.
- 15. Gianfrancesco, M. A., Tamang, S., Yazdany, J., & Schmajuk, G., Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2018; 178(11): 1544–1547. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763
- 16. Gopalakrishnan, V., Khanna, R., & Iyengar, S. S., Ethical challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine and healthcare. AI in Healthcare, 2021; 1: 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aihc.2020.100001
- 17. Holzinger, A., Biemann, C., Pattichis, C. S., & Kell, D. B., What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain? Methods of Information in Medicine, 2016; 55(5): 525–532. https://doi.org/10.3414/ME16-02-0025
- 18. Hripcsak, G., & Albers, D. J., Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2015; 22(5): 921–926. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv050
- 19. Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D., Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Medicine, 2019; 17(1): 195. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2