Evaluation of an AI-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Perioperative Care of Older Patients: Ethical Analysis of Focus Groups With Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The development and introduction of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) in surgical departments as part of the "Supporting Surgery with Geriatric Co-management and AI" project addresses the challenges of an increasingly aging population. The system enables digital comanagement of older patients by providing evidence-based evaluations of their health status, along with corresponding medical recommendations, with the aim of improving their perioperative care. Objective: The use of an AI-based CDSS in patient care raises ethical challenges. Gathering the opinions, expectations, and concerns of older adults (as potential patients) regarding the CDSS enables the identification of ethical opportunities, concerns, and limitations associated with implementing such a system in hospitals. Methods: We conducted 5 focus groups with participants aged 65 years or older. The transcripts were evaluated using qualitative content analysis and ethically analyzed. Categories were inductively generated, followed by a thematic classification of participants' statements. We found that technical understanding did not influence the older adults' opinions. Results: Ethical opportunities and concerns were identified. On the one hand, diagnosis and treatment could be accelerated, the patient-AI-physician interaction could enhance medical treatment, and the coordination of hospital processes could be improved. On the other hand, the quality of the CDSS depends on an adequate data foundation and robust cybersecurity. Potential risks included habituation effects, loss of a second medical opinion, and illness severity influencing patients' attitude toward medical recommendations. The risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment was discussed controversially, and treatment options could be influenced by interests and finances. Additional concerns included challenges with time savings, potential declines in medical skills, and effects on the length of hospital stay. Conclusions: To address the ethical challenges, we recommend allocating sufficient time for use of the CDSS and emphasizing individualized review of the CDSS results. Furthermore, we suggest limiting private financial sponsorship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".