Carlett Spike

home

authors

carlett-spike

In a recent study, IBM Watson Health found artificial intelligence (AI) improves medical decision-making for cancer treatment. Findings suggested that physicians changed their treatment decisions in 13.6% of cases based on information provided by the AI system Watson for Oncology.

The supercomputer support system was designed to provide physicians with the most up-to-date treatment options for patients. IBM hoped it would become an innovative tool to transform cancer treatment, even as news reports of 

shortcomings in IBM’s AI for healthcare

The company partnered with the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and other clinics to train the system to offer top-notch professional judgement by processing over 20 million pieces of literature in seconds.

“In oncology, there is so much data and so much literature, especially in the last few years,” said Mehool Patel, M.D., associate chief medical officer for Watson Health Oncology and Genomics. “Each and every week, there’s so much coming out, in really a breathless fashion, that it’s going to be very hard to ingest all that information for one single person. So part of the ethos of IBM Watson is to really see how we can improve the clinical flow of a clinician who’s treating a patient who really needs cutting-edge care.”

The findings came from a blinded evaluation of 1,000 breast, lung and colorectal cancer patients in India at Manipal Hospitals. Physicians who changed their treatment decisions saw newer treatment options appear in 55% of cases and more personalized alternatives in 30% of cases. In 15% of cases, Watson for Oncology provided new insights from genotypic and phenotypic data and evolving clinical experiences.

Patel said the results of the study further highlight the benefits and potential of Watson for Oncology.

“That’s really why I think this study is very critical because even in centers that are considered expert places in their nation, they are making a significant change. You know, 1% you can say is maybe not much, but about 14% is a large number of patients to have a change in recommendation,” Patel added.

Researchers presented their findings at the annual American Society for Clinical Oncology late last month. IBM Watson Health and its partners also presented 21 other studies featuring their progress in AI technology. The other studies include one finding that suggests Watson for Oncology improves cancer patient confidence and another that found Watson for Genomics surfaces new insights for oncologist treating patients with hematological malignancies.

While the potential benefits of this technology are promising, there continues to be skepticism on the true impact of Watson for Oncology. Previously,

 that showed the technology has offered incorrect cancer treatment advice. Generally, this has left some questioning whether IBM Watson Health has lived up to its promise. Particularly, the larger question of whether AI could ever computerize medical intuition remains to be seen.

Navigate the digital transformation with confidence. 

What IBM Watson Health Hopes to Accomplish Through $50M in Deals with Brigham & Women’s, Vanderbilt

IBM Watson Health Releases Diabetes App, Touts Power of Data

Podcast: The Artificial Intelligence Question

Articles

Physicians changed their treatment decisions in 13.6% of cases thanks to Watson for Oncology.

As IBM Moves Forward, Study Finds Promise in Watson Health Decision-Making

Measles outbreaks are at a record high across the U.S. At last count, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted 764 cases across 23 states. Nine of those states are experiencing full-blown outbreaks. It’s hard not to connect these statistics back to individuals who choose not to get vaccinated — why, after all, are we suffering outbreaks of a disease that can be prevented?

By allowing users to fan the flames of conspiracy theories, social media networks like Facebook and YouTube have reignited the debate over vaccinations. This widely circulates debunked theories, like the idea that vaccinations can cause autism. While there are no clear data linking social media influence to anti-vaccination beliefs, the 

 may well be playing out offline, with measles outbreaks popping up across the country.

While tech companies are left to grapple with finding solutions, how can medical professionals 

? What is healthcare’s responsibility, from clinicians to health system leaders? 

™ spoke with three physicians to find out how healthcare leaders can respond to this wave of misinformation.

Create Counter-Resources to Vaccine Misinformation

Social media aside, the internet allows for a lot of information to be presented unchecked and in misleading ways. Researchers found evidence of about 500 anti-vaccine websites, according to a study published in the 

Daniel Salmon, Ph.D., director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said what he finds really alarming are websites that appear to belong to legitimate health organizations. He pointed to the 

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

“The AAPS is a fringe group,” Salmon said. “I know the difference. I know what the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and the AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians) are, and I know it’s not the AAPS. But for many people, that difference isn’t going to be clear. It’s a great example of where there is misinformation that is being propagated that has the appearance of being legitimate.”

While such misinformation will continue to live online, Salmon said he believes one solution is to provide correct information that is easily accessible to the public. The Institute for Vaccine Safety, for instance, addresses many 

“We cover 50 different vaccine safety topics, and for each one we have a systematic review, and then we summarize the evidence and draw conclusions whether the vaccine causes the adverse reaction or not” Salmon added. “We’re trying to instead provide accurate and succinct information.”

 and other tech companies to limit the influence of groups that promote anti-vaccination messages. But Salmon said he has concerns about the impact of limiting free speech online.

Sanjay Jain, M.D., director of the Center for Infection and Inflammation Imagining and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, said healthcare leaders should take these conversations offline. Colleagues do discuss the latest news and as a professor, Jain said it’s important to talk with students about these situations and what to say to patients who bring incorrect information or concerns.

Discussion between doctors and patients is important. Health systems and management teams need to further encourage their staff to be patient and willing to have these conversations. Remind them that most people that come across anti-vaccine information are not hardcore believers. They are likely just skeptical.

 by UCLA and University of Illinois psychologists found that telling parents their fears are uninformed or erroneous does not help to change their mind. So the approach of each health system and individual physician matters. Understand that it may take some time and more than one conversation.

“People need to understand that there are still some good reasons why vaccines are being given,” Jain said.

Tammy Lundstrom, M.D., J.D., senior vice president and chief medical officer for Trinity Health in Michigan, added that every death that could have been prevented by vaccines is a reminder that these diseases are not benign.

“We need to keep repeating the messages and spend more time explaining the benefit of vaccinations to patients and families,” she said.

Anti-vaxxer ideas would likely carry less weight if more doctors spoke out against them publicly. Physicians should advocate for what they believe in, Lundstrom said, and health systems should enable doctors to become pro-vaccine thought leaders in the digital age.

“The medical community has a responsibility to raise its voice,” she said. “We have to talk about it and work hard to educate those with anti-vaccination beliefs. Providers can take opportunities with individuals and groups as they arise, but they can also work proactively to raise awareness about the myths and truths of vaccinations.”

At Trinity Health, physicians make local media appearances and participate in health events in the hopes of raising awareness about vaccinations. They also practice what they preach and require influenza vaccinations for all colleagues and providers.

In addition to media appearances, she suggests more health experts and organizations should turn to social media to try and “spread” accurate information. 

, suggests that those who have turned to social media are making a difference.

Looking specifically at Twitter, researchers found pro-vax information is starting to overtake anti-vaccination messages. Notably, some of the most influential accounts including the World Health Organization (

) drive these conversations with discussions around legislation and policy.

“The goal is to put context to what happens if you don’t [get vaccinated],” Jain said. “That kind of campaigning needs to happen, and advocacy needs to happen at a bigger level.”

A Lack of Interoperability Forced Me to Register as a Conscientious Objector to Vaccines

High-Risk Healthcare Data & Vaccine Reluctance

State-Level Influenza ‘Nowcasting’ Remains a Thorny Issue

3 physicians discuss enterprise-level strategies to combat digital misinformation.

Carlett Spike

Articles

As IBM Moves Forward, Study Finds Promise in Watson Health Decision-Making

Anti-Vaxxers Thrive on Social Media. Here's How Healthcare Must Respond.