Ethics of Using and Sharing Clinical Imaging Data for Artificial Intelligence: A Proposed Framework
Abstract
When clinical data are used to provide care, the primary purpose for acquiring the data are fulfilled. Secondary use of clinical data should be treated as a form of public good, to be used for the benefit of future patients, and not to be sold for profit or under exclusive arrangements.
In this article, the authors propose an ethical framework for using and sharing clinical data for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The philosophical premise is as follows: when clinical data are used to provide care, the primary purpose for acquiring the data is fulfilled. At that point, clinical data should be treated as a form of public good, to be used for the benefit of future patients. In their 2013 article, Faden et al argued that all who participate in the health care system, including patients, have a moral obligation to contribute to improving that system. The authors extend that framework to questions surrounding the secondary use of clinical data for AI applications. Specifically, the authors propose that all individuals and entities with access to clinical data become data stewards, with fiduciary (or trust) responsibilities to patients to carefully safeguard patient privacy, and to the public to ensure that the data are made widely available for the development of knowledge and tools to benefit future patients. According to this framework, the authors maintain that it is unethical for providers to “sell” clinical data to other parties by granting access to clinical data, especially under exclusive arrangements, in exchange for monetary or in-kind payments that exceed costs. The authors also propose that patient consent is not required before the data are used for secondary purposes when obtaining such consent is prohibitively costly or burdensome, as long as mechanisms are in place to ensure that ethical standards are strictly followed. Rather than debate whether patients or provider organizations “own” the data, the authors propose that clinical data are not owned at all in the traditional sense, but rather that all who interact with or control the data have an obligation to ensure that the data are used for the benefit of future patients and society.
© RSNA, 2020
Online supplemental material is available for this article.
See also the editorial by Krupinski in this issue.
References
- 1. . Top cancer researcher fails to disclose corporate financial ties in major research journals. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/health/jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html. Published September 8, 2018. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 2. . Sloan Kettering’s cozy deal with start-up ignites a new uproar. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/health/memorial-sloan-kettering-cancer-paige-ai.html. Published September 20, 2018. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 3. Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ gathers personal health data on millions of Americans. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-s-secret-project-nightingale-gathers-personal-health-data-on-millions-of-americans-11573496790?mod=article_inline. Published November 11, 2019. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 4. . Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ triggers federal inquiry. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-googles-project-nightingale-a-health-data-gold-mine-of-50-million-patients-11573571867. Published November 12, 2019. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 5. . Yes, Google’s using your healthcare data–and it’s not alone. Computerworld. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3453818/yes-googles-using-your-healthcare-data-and-its-not-alone.html. Published November 15, 2019. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 6. Ethics of artificial intelligence in radiology: summary of the Joint European and North American Multisociety Statement. Radiology 2019;293(2):436–440.
- 7. Protection of human subjects. 56 (117) Federal Register 28013 (1991) (codified at 45 CFR §46).
- 8. . Who owns medical records: 50 state comparison. Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program (George Washington University) and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.healthinfolaw.org/comparative-analysis/who-owns-medical-records-50-state-comparison. Updated August 20, 2015. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 9. . IMS Health Inc. (No. 10-779). Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-779.ZS.html. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 10. Global big data in healthcare market analysis and forecast, 2017-2025 - focus on components and services, applications, & competitive Landscape. ResearchAndMarkets.com. https://bisresearch.com/industry-report/global-big-data-in-healthcare-market-2025.html. Published April 3, 2018. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 11. . Individual access to medical records: 50 state comparison. Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program (George Washington University) and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.healthinfolaw.org/comparative-analysis/individual-access-medical-records-50-state-comparison. Updated September 24, 2013. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 12. . Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics. Accessed October 1, 2019.
- 13. . AMA Code of Ethics. American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/ama-code-medical-ethics. Accessed October 1, 2019.
- 14. . The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Bethesda, Md: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
- 15. . An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013;43(Spec No):S16–S27.
- 16. . Ethics and big data in health. Curr Opin Syst Biol 2017;4:53–57.
- 17. . Clinical Data as the Basic Staple of Health Learning: Creating and Protecting a Public Good: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
- 18. “Public good” definition. Lexico. www.lexico.com/en/definition/public_good. Accessed October 1, 2019.
- 19. . Data governance and stewardship: designing data stewardship entities and advancing data access. Health Serv Res 2010;45(5 Pt 2):1442–1455.
- 20. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Penguin Random House, 2010.
- 21. . Patient’s right to tissue is limited. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/10/science/patient-s-right-to-tissue-is-limited.html. Published July 10, 1990. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 22. . Who should profit from the sale of patient data? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/11/19/who-should-profit-from-the-sale-of-patient-data. Published November 19, 2018. Accessed December 20, 2019.
- 23. . Variable generalization performance of a deep learning model to detect pneumonia in chest radiographs: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2018;15(11):e1002683.
- 24. . Medical image data and datasets in the era of machine learning: whitepaper from the 2016 C-MIMI meeting dataset session. J Digit Imaging 2017;30(4):392–399.
- 25. . Privacy and security protocols. All of Us. https://www.researchallofus.org/about/privacy-security-protocols. Accessed October 1, 2019.
- 26. Distributed deep learning networks among institutions for medical imaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018;25(8):945–954.
- 27. A roadmap for foundational research on artificial intelligence in medical imaging: from the 2018 NIH/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop. Radiology 2019;291(3):781–791.
- 28. . Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information: Final rule, 45 CFR §164.502 (b).
- 29. Weaving technology and policy together to maintain confidentiality. J Law Med Ethics 1997;25(2-3):98–110, 82.
- 30. . Use and understanding of anonymization and de-identification in the biomedical literature: scoping review. J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e13484.
- 31. . Beyond the DICOM header: additional issues in deidentification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(6):W658–W664.
- 32. . Biobank research: who benefits from individual consent? BMJ 2011;343:d5647.
- 33. Creating a data resource: what will it take to build a medical information commons? Genome Med 2017;9(1):84.
- 34. Importance of participant-centricity and trust for a sustainable medical information commons. J Law Med Ethics 2019;47(1):12–20.
- 35. Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Hum Genet 2019;138(11-12):1237–1246.
Article History
Received: Nov 14 2019Revision requested: Dec 17 2019
Revision received: Jan 19 2020
Accepted: Jan 23 2020
Published online: Mar 24 2020
Published in print: June 2020
