You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Communication
Clinical risk prediction models: the canary in the coalmine for artificial intelligence in healthcare?
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 11 October 2021
    Excellent articulation of a real problem, but unsure if the proposed solution would work.
    • Marcus J Baw, Clinical Informatician, Developer, GP and Emergency Physician. Freelance/RCPCH/Baw Medical Ltd

    The authors are correct that there is a definite problem of lack of availability of clinical risk prediction models (CRPMs) and other clinical digital tools at the 'coalface'. However there may be many other potential solutions to solving this, using more orthodox methods than a novel blockchain-based deployment marketplace.

    It is clear that academic, clinical, managerial , and industry incentives are misaligned and this is why CRPMs don't readily see deployment to places where clinical end-users can easily obtain and use them. But a blockchain-based solution is hard to envisage, when more ordinary deployment methods have not seemingly been tried with sufficient enthusiasm. The article suggests that blockchain 'might' be part of the solution but it would be a more convincing argument were this backed up by an open source proof of concept or a demonstration of such as system in action. It seems unlikely to me that EHR vendors will willingly integrate external features into their systems that are totally reliant on an unproven, fluid 'marketplace' of smart contract execution, with no guarantee of uptime, future cost, or long term reliability or even existence.

    Additionally, widening the discussion of these deployment incentives to include AI-based clinical risk models blurs the picture because these two types of CRPM are very different. The level of clinical trust of such experimental AI models is low, and does not favourably...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.