Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES)

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares169 Views

    Automated system teaches users when to collaborate with an AI assistant

    by

    Artificial intelligence models that pick out patterns in images can often do so better than human eyes — but not always. If a radiologist is using an AI model to help her determine whether a patient’s X-rays show signs of pneumonia, when should she trust the model’s advice and when should she ignore it?

    A customized onboarding process could help this radiologist answer that question, according to researchers at MIT and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. They designed a system that teaches a user when to collaborate with an AI assistant.

    In this case, the training method might find situations where the radiologist trusts the model’s advice — except she shouldn’t because the model is wrong. The system automatically learns rules for how she should collaborate with the AI, and describes them with natural language.

    During onboarding, the radiologist practices collaborating with the AI using training exercises based on these rules, receiving feedback about her performance and the AI’s performance.

    The researchers found that this onboarding procedure led to about a 5 percent improvement in accuracy when humans and AI collaborated on an image prediction task. Their results also show that just telling the user when to trust the AI, without training, led to worse performance.

    Importantly, the researchers’ system is fully automated, so it learns to create the onboarding process based on data from the human and AI performing a specific task. It can also adapt to different tasks, so it can be scaled up and used in many situations where humans and AI models work together, such as in social media content moderation, writing, and programming.

    “So often, people are given these AI tools to use without any training to help them figure out when it is going to be helpful. That’s not what we do with nearly every other tool that people use — there is almost always some kind of tutorial that comes with it. But for AI, this seems to be missing. We are trying to tackle this problem from a methodological and behavioral perspective,” says Hussein Mozannar, a graduate student in the Social and Engineering Systems doctoral program within the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) and lead author of a paper about this training process.

    The researchers envision that such onboarding will be a crucial part of training for medical professionals.

    “One could imagine, for example, that doctors making treatment decisions with the help of AI will first have to do training similar to what we propose. We may need to rethink everything from continuing medical education to the way clinical trials are designed,” says senior author David Sontag, a professor of EECS, a member of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and the MIT Jameel Clinic, and the leader of the Clinical Machine Learning Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).

    Mozannar, who is also a researcher with the Clinical Machine Learning Group, is joined on the paper by Jimin J. Lee, an undergraduate in electrical engineering and computer science; Dennis Wei, a senior research scientist at IBM Research; and Prasanna Sattigeri and Subhro Das, research staff members at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. The paper will be presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.

    Training that evolves

    Existing onboarding methods for human-AI collaboration are often composed of training materials produced by human experts for specific use cases, making them difficult to scale up. Some related techniques rely on explanations, where the AI tells the user its confidence in each decision, but research has shown that explanations are rarely helpful, Mozannar says.

    “The AI model’s capabilities are constantly evolving, so the use cases where the human could potentially benefit from it are growing over time. At the same time, the user’s perception of the model continues changing. So, we need a training procedure that also evolves over time,” he adds.

    To accomplish this, their onboarding method is automatically learned from data. It is built from a dataset that contains many instances of a task, such as detecting the presence of a traffic light from a blurry image.

    The system’s first step is to collect data on the human and AI performing this task. In this case, the human would try to predict, with the help of AI, whether blurry images contain traffic lights.

    The system embeds these data points onto a latent space, which is a representation of data in which similar data points are closer together. It uses an algorithm to discover regions of this space where the human collaborates incorrectly with the AI. These regions capture instances where the human trusted the AI’s prediction but the prediction was wrong, and vice versa.

    Perhaps the human mistakenly trusts the AI when images show a highway at night.

    After discovering the regions, a second algorithm utilizes a large language model to describe each region as a rule, using natural language. The algorithm iteratively fine-tunes that rule by finding contrasting examples. It might describe this region as “ignore AI when it is a highway during the night.”

    These rules are used to build training exercises. The onboarding system shows an example to the human, in this case a blurry highway scene at night, as well as the AI’s prediction, and asks the user if the image shows traffic lights. The user can answer yes, no, or use the AI’s prediction.

    If the human is wrong, they are shown the correct answer and performance statistics for the human and AI on these instances of the task. The system does this for each region, and at the end of the training process, repeats the exercises the human got wrong.

    “After that, the human has learned something about these regions that we hope they will take away in the future to make more accurate predictions,” Mozannar says.

    Onboarding boosts accuracy

    The researchers tested this system with users on two tasks — detecting traffic lights in blurry images and answering multiple choice questions from many domains (such as biology, philosophy, computer science, etc.).

    They first showed users a card with information about the AI model, how it was trained, and a breakdown of its performance on broad categories. Users were split into five groups: Some were only shown the card, some went through the researchers’ onboarding procedure, some went through a baseline onboarding procedure, some went through the researchers’ onboarding procedure and were given recommendations of when they should or should not trust the AI, and others were only given the recommendations.

    Only the researchers’ onboarding procedure without recommendations improved users’ accuracy significantly, boosting their performance on the traffic light prediction task by about 5 percent without slowing them down. However, onboarding was not as effective for the question-answering task. The researchers believe this is because the AI model, ChatGPT, provided explanations with each answer that convey whether it should be trusted.

    But providing recommendations without onboarding had the opposite effect — users not only performed worse, they took more time to make predictions.

    “When you only give someone recommendations, it seems like they get confused and don’t know what to do. It derails their process. People also don’t like being told what to do, so that is a factor as well,” Mozannar says.

    Providing recommendations alone could harm the user if those recommendations are wrong, he adds. With onboarding, on the other hand, the biggest limitation is the amount of available data. If there aren’t enough data, the onboarding stage won’t be as effective, he says.

    In the future, he and his collaborators want to conduct larger studies to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of onboarding. They also want to leverage unlabeled data for the onboarding process, and find methods to effectively reduce the number of regions without omitting important examples.

    “People are adopting AI systems willy-nilly, and indeed AI offers great potential, but these AI agents still sometimes makes mistakes. Thus, it’s crucial for AI developers to devise methods that help humans know when it’s safe to rely on the AI’s suggestions,” says Dan Weld, professor emeritus at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, who was not involved with this research. “Mozannar et al. have created an innovative method for identifying situations where the AI is trustworthy, and (importantly) to describe them to people in a way that leads to better human-AI team interactions.”

    This work is funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      How an archeological approach can help leverage biased data in AI to improve medicine

      by

      The classic computer science adage “garbage in, garbage out” lacks nuance when it comes to understanding biased medical data, argue computer science and bioethics professors from MIT, Johns Hopkins University, and the Alan Turing Institute in a new opinion piece published in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The rising popularity of artificial intelligence has brought increased scrutiny to the matter of biased AI models resulting in algorithmic discrimination, which the White House Office of Science and Technology identified as a key issue in their recent Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. 

      When encountering biased data, particularly for AI models used in medical settings, the typical response is to either collect more data from underrepresented groups or generate synthetic data making up for missing parts to ensure that the model performs equally well across an array of patient populations. But the authors argue that this technical approach should be augmented with a sociotechnical perspective that takes both historical and current social factors into account. By doing so, researchers can be more effective in addressing bias in public health. 

      “The three of us had been discussing the ways in which we often treat issues with data from a machine learning perspective as irritations that need to be managed with a technical solution,” recalls co-author Marzyeh Ghassemi, an assistant professor in electrical engineering and computer science and an affiliate of the Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health (Jameel Clinic), the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), and Institute of Medical Engineering and Science (IMES). “We had used analogies of data as an artifact that gives a partial view of past practices, or a cracked mirror holding up a reflection. In both cases the information is perhaps not entirely accurate or favorable: Maybe we think that we behave in certain ways as a society — but when you actually look at the data, it tells a different story. We might not like what that story is, but once you unearth an understanding of the past you can move forward and take steps to address poor practices.” 

      Data as artifact 

      In the paper, titled “Considering Biased Data as Informative Artifacts in AI-Assisted Health Care,” Ghassemi, Kadija Ferryman, and Maxine Mackintosh make the case for viewing biased clinical data as “artifacts” in the same way anthropologists or archeologists would view physical objects: pieces of civilization-revealing practices, belief systems, and cultural values — in the case of the paper, specifically those that have led to existing inequities in the health care system. 

      For example, a 2019 study showed that an algorithm widely considered to be an industry standard used health-care expenditures as an indicator of need, leading to the erroneous conclusion that sicker Black patients require the same level of care as healthier white patients. What researchers found was algorithmic discrimination failing to account for unequal access to care.  

      In this instance, rather than viewing biased datasets or lack of data as problems that only require disposal or fixing, Ghassemi and her colleagues recommend the “artifacts” approach as a way to raise awareness around social and historical elements influencing how data are collected and alternative approaches to clinical AI development. 

      “If the goal of your model is deployment in a clinical setting, you should engage a bioethicist or a clinician with appropriate training reasonably early on in problem formulation,” says Ghassemi. “As computer scientists, we often don’t have a complete picture of the different social and historical factors that have gone into creating data that we’ll be using. We need expertise in discerning when models generalized from existing data may not work well for specific subgroups.” 

      When more data can actually harm performance 

      The authors acknowledge that one of the more challenging aspects of implementing an artifact-based approach is being able to assess whether data have been racially corrected: i.e., using white, male bodies as the conventional standard that other bodies are measured against. The opinion piece cites an example from the Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration in 2021, which developed a new equation to measure kidney function because the old equation had previously been “corrected” under the blanket assumption that Black people have higher muscle mass. Ghassemi says that researchers should be prepared to investigate race-based correction as part of the research process. 

      In another recent paper accepted to this year’s International Conference on Machine Learning co-authored by Ghassemi’s PhD student Vinith Suriyakumar and University of California at San Diego Assistant Professor Berk Ustun, the researchers found that assuming the inclusion of personalized attributes like self-reported race improve the performance of ML models can actually lead to worse risk scores, models, and metrics for minority and minoritized populations.  

      “There’s no single right solution for whether or not to include self-reported race in a clinical risk score. Self-reported race is a social construct that is both a proxy for other information, and deeply proxied itself in other medical data. The solution needs to fit the evidence,” explains Ghassemi. 

      How to move forward 

      This is not to say that biased datasets should be enshrined, or biased algorithms don’t require fixing — quality training data is still key to developing safe, high-performance clinical AI models, and the NEJM piece highlights the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in driving ethical practices.  

      “Generating high-quality, ethically sourced datasets is crucial for enabling the use of next-generation AI technologies that transform how we do research,” NIH acting director Lawrence Tabak stated in a press release when the NIH announced its $130 million Bridge2AI Program last year. Ghassemi agrees, pointing out that the NIH has “prioritized data collection in ethical ways that cover information we have not previously emphasized the value of in human health — such as environmental factors and social determinants. I’m very excited about their prioritization of, and strong investments towards, achieving meaningful health outcomes.” 

      Elaine Nsoesie, an associate professor at the Boston University of Public Health, believes there are many potential benefits to treating biased datasets as artifacts rather than garbage, starting with the focus on context. “Biases present in a dataset collected for lung cancer patients in a hospital in Uganda might be different from a dataset collected in the U.S. for the same patient population,” she explains. “In considering local context, we can train algorithms to better serve specific populations.” Nsoesie says that understanding the historical and contemporary factors shaping a dataset can make it easier to identify discriminatory practices that might be coded in algorithms or systems in ways that are not immediately obvious. She also notes that an artifact-based approach could lead to the development of new policies and structures ensuring that the root causes of bias in a particular dataset are eliminated. 

      “People often tell me that they are very afraid of AI, especially in health. They’ll say, ‘I’m really scared of an AI misdiagnosing me,’ or ‘I’m concerned it will treat me poorly,’” Ghassemi says. “I tell them, you shouldn’t be scared of some hypothetical AI in health tomorrow, you should be scared of what health is right now. If we take a narrow technical view of the data we extract from systems, we could naively replicate poor practices. That’s not the only option — realizing there is a problem is our first step towards a larger opportunity.”  More

    • 63 Shares109 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      The tenured engineers of 2023

      by

      In 2023, MIT granted tenure to nine faculty members across the School of Engineering. This year’s tenured engineers hold appointments in the departments of Biological Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (which reports jointly to the School of Engineering and MIT Schwarzman College of Computing), Materials Science and Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering, as well as the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES).

      “I am truly inspired by this remarkable group of talented faculty members,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, dean of the School of Engineering and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “The work they are doing, both in the lab and in the classroom, has made a tremendous impact at MIT and in the wider world. Their important research has applications in a diverse range of fields and industries. I am thrilled to congratulate them on the milestone of receiving tenure.”

      This year’s newly tenured engineering faculty include:

      Michael Birnbaum, Class of 1956 Career Development Professor, associate professor of biological engineering, and faculty member at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, works on understanding and manipulating immune recognition in cancer and infections. By using a variety of techniques to study the antigen recognition of T cells, he and his team aim to develop the next generation of immunotherapies.  
      Tamara Broderick, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science and member of the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) and the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), works to provide fast and reliable quantification of uncertainty and robustness in modern data analysis procedures. Broderick and her research group develop data analysis tools with applications in fields, including genetics, economics, and assistive technology. 
      Tal Cohen, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and mechanical engineering, uses nonlinear solid mechanics to understand how materials behave under extreme conditions. By studying material instabilities, extreme dynamic loading conditions, growth, and chemical coupling, Cohen and her team combine theoretical models and experiments to shape our understanding of the observed phenomena and apply those insights in the design and characterization of material systems. 
      Betar Gallant, Class of 1922 Career Development Professor and associate professor of mechanical engineering, develops advanced materials and chemistries for next-generation lithium-ion and lithium primary batteries and electrochemical carbon dioxide mitigation technologies. Her group’s work could lead to higher-energy and more sustainable batteries for electric vehicles, longer-lasting implantable medical devices, and new methods of carbon capture and conversion. 
      Rafael Jaramillo, Thomas Lord Career Development Professor and associate professor of materials science and engineering, studies the synthesis, properties, and applications of electronic materials, particularly chalcogenide compound semiconductors. His work has applications in microelectronics, integrated photonics, telecommunications, and photovoltaics. 
      Benedetto Marelli, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, conducts research on the synthesis, assembly, and nanomanufacturing of structural biopolymers. He and his research team develop biomaterials for applications in agriculture, food security, and food safety. 
      Ellen Roche, Latham Family Career Development Professor, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, and a core faculty of IMES, designs and develops implantable, biomimetic therapeutic devices and soft robotics that mechanically assist and repair tissue, deliver therapies, and enable enhanced preclinical testing. Her devices have a wide range of applications in human health, including cardiovascular and respiratory disease. 
      Serguei Saavedra, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, uses systems thinking, synthesis, and mathematical modeling to study the persistence of ecological systems under changing environments. His theoretical research is used to develop hypotheses and corroborate predictions of how ecological systems respond to climate change. 
      Justin Solomon, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science and member of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and MIT Center for Computational Science and Engineering, works at the intersection of geometry, large-scale optimization, computer graphics, and machine learning. His research has diverse applications in machine learning, computer graphics, and geometric data processing.  More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Summer research offers a springboard to advanced studies

      by

      Doctoral studies at MIT aren’t a calling for everyone, but they can be for anyone who has had opportunities to discover that science and technology research is their passion and to build the experience and skills to succeed. For Taylor Baum, Josefina Correa Menéndez, and Karla Alejandra Montejo, three graduate students in just one lab of The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, a pivotal opportunity came via the MIT Summer Research Program in Biology and Neuroscience (MSRP-Bio). When a student finds MSRP-Bio, it helps them find their future in research. 

      In the program, undergraduate STEM majors from outside MIT spend the summer doing full-time research in the departments of Biology, Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS), or the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (CBMM). They gain lab skills, mentoring, preparation for graduate school, and connections that might last a lifetime. Over the last two decades, a total of 215 students from underrepresented minority groups, who are from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, first-generation or nontraditional college students, or students with disabilities have participated in research in BCS or CBMM labs.  

      Like Baum, Correa Menéndez, and Montejo, the vast majority go on to pursue graduate studies, says Diversity and Outreach Coordinator Mandana Sassanfar, who runs the program. For instance, among 91 students who have worked in Picower Institute labs, 81 have completed their undergraduate studies. Of those, 46 enrolled in PhD programs at MIT or other schools such as Cornell, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton universities, and the University of California System. Another 12 have gone to medical school, another seven are in MD/PhD programs, and three have earned master’s degrees. The rest are studying as post-baccalaureates or went straight into the workforce after earning their bachelor’s degree. 

      After participating in the program, Baum, Correa Menéndez, and Montejo each became graduate students in the research group of Emery N. Brown, the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Computational Neuroscience and Medical Engineering in The Picower Institute and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science. The lab combines statistical, computational, and experimental neuroscience methods to study how general anesthesia affects the central nervous system to ultimately improve patient care and advance understanding of the brain. Brown says the students have each been doing “off-the-scale” work, in keeping with the excellence he’s seen from MSRP BIO students over the years. For example, on Aug. 10 Baum and Correa Menéndez were honored with MathWorks Fellowships.

      “I think MSRP is fantastic. Mandana does this amazing job of getting students who are quite talented to come to MIT to realize that they can move their game to the next level. They have the capacity to do it. They just need the opportunities,” Brown says. “These students live up to the expectations that you have of them. And now as graduate students, they’re taking on hard problems and they’re solving them.” 

      Paths to PhD studies 

      Pursuing a PhD is hardly a given. Many young students have never considered graduate school or specific fields of study like neuroscience or electrical engineering. But Sassanfar engages students across the country to introduce them to the opportunity MSRP-Bio provides to gain exposure, experience, and mentoring in advanced fields. Every fall, after the program’s students have returned to their undergraduate institutions, she visits schools in places as far flung as Florida, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and Texas and goes to conferences for diverse science communities such as ABRCMS and SACNAS to spread the word. 

      Taylor Baum

      Photo courtesy of Taylor Baum.

      Previous item
      Next item

      When Baum first connected with the program in 2017, she was finding her way at Penn State University. She had been majoring in biology and music composition but had just switched the latter to engineering following a conversation over coffee exposing her to brain-computer interfacing technology, in which detecting brain signals of people with full-body paralysis could improve their quality of life by enabling control of computers or wheelchairs. Baum became enthusiastic about the potential to build similar systems, but as a new engineering student, she struggled to find summer internships and research opportunities. 

      “I got rejected from every single progam except the MIT Center for Brains, Minds and Machines MSRP,” she recalls with a chuckle. 

      Baum thrived in MSRP-Bio, working in Brown’s lab for three successive summers. At each stage, she said, she gained more research skills, experience, and independence. When she graduated, she was sure she wanted to go to graduate school and applied to four of her dream schools. She accepted MIT’s offer to join the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, where she is co-advised by faculty members there and by Brown. She is now working to develop a system grounded in cardiovascular physiology that can improve blood pressure management. A tool for practicing anesthesiologists, the system automates the dosing of drugs to maintain a patient’s blood pressure at safe levels in the operating room or intensive care unit. 

      More than that, Baum not only is leading an organization advancing STEM education in Puerto Rico, but also is helping to mentor a current MSRP-Bio student in the Brown lab. 

      “MSRP definitely bonds everyone who has participated in it,” Baum says. “If I see anyone who I know participated in MSRP, we could have an immediate conversation. I know that most of us, if we needed help, we’d feel comfortable asking for help from someone from MSRP. With that shared experience, we have a sense of camaraderie, and community.” 

      In fact, a few years ago when a former MSRP-Bio student named Karla Montejo was applying to MIT, Baum provided essential advice and feedback about the application process, Montejo says. Now, as a graduate student, Montejo has become a mentor for the program in her own right, Sassanfar notes. For instance, Montejo serves on program alumni panels that advise new MSRP-Bio students. 

      Karla Alejandra Montejo

      Photo courtesy of Karla Alejandra Montejo.

      Previous item
      Next item

      Montejo’s family immigrated to Miami from Cuba when she was a child. The magnet high school she attended was so new that students were encouraged to help establish the school’s programs. She forged a path into research. 

      “I didn’t even know what research was,” she says. “I wanted to be a doctor, and I thought maybe it would help me on my resume. I thought it would be kind of like shadowing, but no, it was really different. So I got really captured by research when I was in high school.” 

      Despite continuing to pursue research in college at Florida International University, Montejo didn’t get into graduate school on her first attempt because she hadn’t yet learned how to focus her application. But Sassanfar had visited FIU to recruit students and through that relationship Montejo had already gone through MIT’s related Quantitative Methods Workshop (QMW). So Montejo enrolled in MSRP-Bio, working in the CBMM-affiliated lab of Gabriel Kreiman at Boston Children’s Hospital. 

      “I feel like Mandana really helped me out, gave me a break, and the MSRP experience pretty much solidified that I really wanted to come to MIT,” Montejo says. 

      In the QMW, Montejo learned she really liked computational neuroscience, and in Kreiman’s lab she got to try her hand at computational modeling of the cognition involved in making perceptual sense of complex scenes. Montejo realized she wanted to work on more biologically based neuroscience problems. When the summer ended, because she was off the normal graduate school cycle for now, she found a two-year post-baccalaurate program at Mayo Clinic studying the role a brain cell type called astrocytes might have in the Parkinson’s disease treatment deep brain stimulation. 

      When it came time to reapply to graduate schools (with the help of Baum and others in the BCS Application Assistance Program) Montejo applied to MIT and got in, joining the Brown lab. Now she’s working on modeling the role of  metabolic processes in the changing of brain rhythms under anesthesia, taking advantage of how general anesthesia predictably changes brain states. The effects anesthetic drugs have on cell metabolism and the way that ultimately affects levels of consciousness reveals important aspects of how metabolism affects brain circuits and systems. Earlier this month, for instance, Montejo co-led a paper the lab published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences detailing the neuroscience of a patient’s transition into an especially deep state of unconsciousness called “burst suppression.” 

      Josefina Correa Menendez

      Photo: David Orenstein

      Previous item
      Next item

      A signature of the Brown lab’s work is rigorous statistical analysis and methods, for instance to discern brain arousal states from EEG measures of brain rhythms. A PhD candidate in MIT’s Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Statistics, Correa Menéndez is advancing the use of Bayesian hierarchical models for neural data analysis. These statistical models offer a principled way of pooling information across datasets. One of her models can help scientists better understand the way neurons can “spike” with electrical activity when the brain is presented with a stimulus. The other’s power is in discerning critical features such as arousal states of the brain under general anesthesia from electrophysiological recordings. 

      Though she now works with complex equations and computations as a PhD candidate in neuroscience and statistics, Correa Menéndez was mostly interested in music art as a high school student at Academia María Reina in San Juan and then architecture in college at the University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras. It was discussions at the intersection of epistemology and art during an art theory class that inspired Correa Menéndez to switch her major to biology and to take computer science classes, too. 

      When Sassanfar visited Puerto Rico in 2017, a computer science professor (Patricia Ordóñez) suggested that Correa Menéndez apply for a chance to attend the QMW. She did, and that led her to also participate in MSRP-Bio in the lab of Sherman Fairchild Professor Matt Wilson (a faculty member in BCS, CBMM, and the Picower Institute). She joined in the lab’s studies of how spatial memories are represented in the hippocampus and how the brain makes use of those memories to help understand the world around it. With mentoring from then-postdoc Carmen Varela (now a faculty member at Florida State University), the experience not only exposed her to neuroscience, but also helped her gain skills and experience with lab experiments, building research tools, and conducting statistical analyses. She ended up working in the Wilson lab as a research scholar for a year and began her graduate studies in September 2018.  

      Classes she took with Brown as a research scholar inspired her to join his lab as a graduate student. 

      “Taking the classes with Emery and also doing experiments made me aware of the role of statistics in the scientific process: from the interpretation of results to the analysis and the design of experiments,” she says. “More often than not, in science, statistics becomes this sort of afterthought — this ‘annoying’ thing that people need to do to get their paper published. But statistics as a field is actually a lot more than that. It’s a way of thinking about data. Particularly, Bayesian modeling provides a principled inference framework for combining prior knowledge into a hypothesis that you can test with data.” 

      To be sure, no one starts out with such inspiration about scientific scholarship, but MSRP-Bio helps students find that passion for research and the paths that opens up.   More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Joining the battle against health care bias

      by

      Medical researchers are awash in a tsunami of clinical data. But we need major changes in how we gather, share, and apply this data to bring its benefits to all, says Leo Anthony Celi, principal research scientist at the MIT Laboratory for Computational Physiology (LCP). 

      One key change is to make clinical data of all kinds openly available, with the proper privacy safeguards, says Celi, a practicing intensive care unit (ICU) physician at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston. Another key is to fully exploit these open data with multidisciplinary collaborations among clinicians, academic investigators, and industry. A third key is to focus on the varying needs of populations across every country, and to empower the experts there to drive advances in treatment, says Celi, who is also an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. 

      In all of this work, researchers must actively seek to overcome the perennial problem of bias in understanding and applying medical knowledge. This deeply damaging problem is only heightened with the massive onslaught of machine learning and other artificial intelligence technologies. “Computers will pick up all our unconscious, implicit biases when we make decisions,” Celi warns.

      Play video

      Sharing medical data 

      Founded by the LCP, the MIT Critical Data consortium builds communities across disciplines to leverage the data that are routinely collected in the process of ICU care to understand health and disease better. “We connect people and align incentives,” Celi says. “In order to advance, hospitals need to work with universities, who need to work with industry partners, who need access to clinicians and data.” 

      The consortium’s flagship project is the MIMIC (medical information marked for intensive care) ICU database built at BIDMC. With about 35,000 users around the world, the MIMIC cohort is the most widely analyzed in critical care medicine. 

      International collaborations such as MIMIC highlight one of the biggest obstacles in health care: most clinical research is performed in rich countries, typically with most clinical trial participants being white males. “The findings of these trials are translated into treatment recommendations for every patient around the world,” says Celi. “We think that this is a major contributor to the sub-optimal outcomes that we see in the treatment of all sorts of diseases in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America.” 

      To fix this problem, “groups who are disproportionately burdened by disease should be setting the research agenda,” Celi says. 

      That’s the rule in the “datathons” (health hackathons) that MIT Critical Data has organized in more than two dozen countries, which apply the latest data science techniques to real-world health data. At the datathons, MIT students and faculty both learn from local experts and share their own skill sets. Many of these several-day events are sponsored by the MIT Industrial Liaison Program, the MIT International Science and Technology Initiatives program, or the MIT Sloan Latin America Office. 

      Datathons are typically held in that country’s national language or dialect, rather than English, with representation from academia, industry, government, and other stakeholders. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and social workers join up with computer science, engineering, and humanities students to brainstorm and analyze potential solutions. “They need each other’s expertise to fully leverage and discover and validate the knowledge that is encrypted in the data, and that will be translated into the way they deliver care,” says Celi. 

      “Everywhere we go, there is incredible talent that is completely capable of designing solutions to their health-care problems,” he emphasizes. The datathons aim to further empower the professionals and students in the host countries to drive medical research, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

      Play video

      Fighting built-in bias 

      Applying machine learning and other advanced data science techniques to medical data reveals that “bias exists in the data in unimaginable ways” in every type of health product, Celi says. Often this bias is rooted in the clinical trials required to approve medical devices and therapies. 

      One dramatic example comes from pulse oximeters, which provide readouts on oxygen levels in a patient’s blood. It turns out that these devices overestimate oxygen levels for people of color. “We have been under-treating individuals of color because the nurses and the doctors have been falsely assured that their patients have adequate oxygenation,” he says. “We think that we have harmed, if not killed, a lot of individuals in the past, especially during Covid, as a result of a technology that was not designed with inclusive test subjects.” 

      Such dangers only increase as the universe of medical data expands. “The data that we have available now for research is maybe two or three levels of magnitude more than what we had even 10 years ago,” Celi says. MIMIC, for example, now includes terabytes of X-ray, echocardiogram, and electrocardiogram data, all linked with related health records. Such enormous sets of data allow investigators to detect health patterns that were previously invisible. 

      “But there is a caveat,” Celi says. “It is trivial for computers to learn sensitive attributes that are not very obvious to human experts.” In a study released last year, for instance, he and his colleagues showed that algorithms can tell if a chest X-ray image belongs to a white patient or person of color, even without looking at any other clinical data. 

      “More concerningly, groups including ours have demonstrated that computers can learn easily if you’re rich or poor, just from your imaging alone,” Celi says. “We were able to train a computer to predict if you are on Medicaid, or if you have private insurance, if you feed them with chest X-rays without any abnormality. So again, computers are catching features that are not visible to the human eye.” And these features may lead algorithms to advise against therapies for people who are Black or poor, he says. 

      Opening up industry opportunities 

      Every stakeholder stands to benefit when pharmaceutical firms and other health-care corporations better understand societal needs and can target their treatments appropriately, Celi says. 

      “We need to bring to the table the vendors of electronic health records and the medical device manufacturers, as well as the pharmaceutical companies,” he explains. “They need to be more aware of the disparities in the way that they perform their research. They need to have more investigators representing underrepresented groups of people, to provide that lens to come up with better designs of health products.” 

      Corporations could benefit by sharing results from their clinical trials, and could immediately see these potential benefits by participating in datathons, Celi says. “They could really witness the magic that happens when that data is curated and analyzed by students and clinicians with different backgrounds from different countries. So we’re calling out our partners in the pharmaceutical industry to organize these events with us!”  More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      3 Questions: Leo Anthony Celi on ChatGPT and medicine

      by

      Launched in November 2022, ChatGPT is a chatbot that can not only engage in human-like conversation, but also provide accurate answers to questions in a wide range of knowledge domains. The chatbot, created by the firm OpenAI, is based on a family of “large language models” — algorithms that can recognize, predict, and generate text based on patterns they identify in datasets containing hundreds of millions of words.

      In a study appearing in PLOS Digital Health this week, researchers report that ChatGPT performed at or near the passing threshold of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) — a comprehensive, three-part exam that doctors must pass before practicing medicine in the United States. In an editorial accompanying the paper, Leo Anthony Celi, a principal research scientist at MIT’s Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, a practicing physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, and his co-authors argue that ChatGPT’s success on this exam should be a wake-up call for the medical community.

      Q: What do you think the success of ChatGPT on the USMLE reveals about the nature of the medical education and evaluation of students? 

      A: The framing of medical knowledge as something that can be encapsulated into multiple choice questions creates a cognitive framing of false certainty. Medical knowledge is often taught as fixed model representations of health and disease. Treatment effects are presented as stable over time despite constantly changing practice patterns. Mechanistic models are passed on from teachers to students with little emphasis on how robustly those models were derived, the uncertainties that persist around them, and how they must be recalibrated to reflect advances worthy of incorporation into practice. 

      ChatGPT passed an examination that rewards memorizing the components of a system rather than analyzing how it works, how it fails, how it was created, how it is maintained. Its success demonstrates some of the shortcomings in how we train and evaluate medical students. Critical thinking requires appreciation that ground truths in medicine continually shift, and more importantly, an understanding how and why they shift.

      Q: What steps do you think the medical community should take to modify how students are taught and evaluated?  

      A: Learning is about leveraging the current body of knowledge, understanding its gaps, and seeking to fill those gaps. It requires being comfortable with and being able to probe the uncertainties. We fail as teachers by not teaching students how to understand the gaps in the current body of knowledge. We fail them when we preach certainty over curiosity, and hubris over humility.  

      Medical education also requires being aware of the biases in the way medical knowledge is created and validated. These biases are best addressed by optimizing the cognitive diversity within the community. More than ever, there is a need to inspire cross-disciplinary collaborative learning and problem-solving. Medical students need data science skills that will allow every clinician to contribute to, continually assess, and recalibrate medical knowledge.

      Q: Do you see any upside to ChatGPT’s success in this exam? Are there beneficial ways that ChatGPT and other forms of AI can contribute to the practice of medicine? 

      A: There is no question that large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are very powerful tools in sifting through content beyond the capabilities of experts, or even groups of experts, and extracting knowledge. However, we will need to address the problem of data bias before we can leverage LLMs and other artificial intelligence technologies. The body of knowledge that LLMs train on, both medical and beyond, is dominated by content and research from well-funded institutions in high-income countries. It is not representative of most of the world.

      We have also learned that even mechanistic models of health and disease may be biased. These inputs are fed to encoders and transformers that are oblivious to these biases. Ground truths in medicine are continuously shifting, and currently, there is no way to determine when ground truths have drifted. LLMs do not evaluate the quality and the bias of the content they are being trained on. Neither do they provide the level of uncertainty around their output. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There is tremendous opportunity to improve the way health care providers currently make clinical decisions, which we know are tainted with unconscious bias. I have no doubt AI will deliver its promise once we have optimized the data input. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Large language models help decipher clinical notes

      by

      Electronic health records (EHRs) need a new public relations manager. Ten years ago, the U.S. government passed a law that required hospitals to digitize their health records with the intent of improving and streamlining care. The enormous amount of information in these now-digital records could be used to answer very specific questions beyond the scope of clinical trials: What’s the right dose of this medication for patients with this height and weight? What about patients with a specific genomic profile?

      Unfortunately, most of the data that could answer these questions is trapped in doctor’s notes, full of jargon and abbreviations. These notes are hard for computers to understand using current techniques — extracting information requires training multiple machine learning models. Models trained for one hospital, also, don’t work well at others, and training each model requires domain experts to label lots of data, a time-consuming and expensive process. 

      An ideal system would use a single model that can extract many types of information, work well at multiple hospitals, and learn from a small amount of labeled data. But how? Researchers from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) believed that to disentangle the data, they needed to call on something bigger: large language models. To pull that important medical information, they used a very big, GPT-3 style model to do tasks like expand overloaded jargon and acronyms and extract medication regimens. 

      For example, the system takes an input, which in this case is a clinical note, “prompts” the model with a question about the note, such as “expand this abbreviation, C-T-A.” The system returns an output such as “clear to auscultation,” as opposed to say, a CT angiography. The objective of extracting this clean data, the team says, is to eventually enable more personalized clinical recommendations. 

      Medical data is, understandably, a pretty tricky resource to navigate freely. There’s plenty of red tape around using public resources for testing the performance of large models because of data use restrictions, so the team decided to scrape together their own. Using a set of short, publicly available clinical snippets, they cobbled together a small dataset to enable evaluation of the extraction performance of large language models. 

      “It’s challenging to develop a single general-purpose clinical natural language processing system that will solve everyone’s needs and be robust to the huge variation seen across health datasets. As a result, until today, most clinical notes are not used in downstream analyses or for live decision support in electronic health records. These large language model approaches could potentially transform clinical natural language processing,” says David Sontag, MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science, principal investigator in CSAIL and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, and supervising author on a paper about the work, which will be presented at the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. “The research team’s advances in zero-shot clinical information extraction makes scaling possible. Even if you have hundreds of different use cases, no problem — you can build each model with a few minutes of work, versus having to label a ton of data for that particular task.”

      For example, without any labels at all, the researchers found these models could achieve 86 percent accuracy at expanding overloaded acronyms, and the team developed additional methods to boost this further to 90 percent accuracy, with still no labels required.

      Imprisoned in an EHR 

      Experts have been steadily building up large language models (LLMs) for quite some time, but they burst onto the mainstream with GPT-3’s widely covered ability to complete sentences. These LLMs are trained on a huge amount of text from the internet to finish sentences and predict the next most likely word. 

      While previous, smaller models like earlier GPT iterations or BERT have pulled off a good performance for extracting medical data, they still require substantial manual data-labeling effort. 

      For example, a note, “pt will dc vanco due to n/v” means that this patient (pt) was taking the antibiotic vancomycin (vanco) but experienced nausea and vomiting (n/v) severe enough for the care team to discontinue (dc) the medication. The team’s research avoids the status quo of training separate machine learning models for each task (extracting medication, side effects from the record, disambiguating common abbreviations, etc). In addition to expanding abbreviations, they investigated four other tasks, including if the models could parse clinical trials and extract detail-rich medication regimens.  

      “Prior work has shown that these models are sensitive to the prompt’s precise phrasing. Part of our technical contribution is a way to format the prompt so that the model gives you outputs in the correct format,” says Hunter Lang, CSAIL PhD student and author on the paper. “For these extraction problems, there are structured output spaces. The output space is not just a string. It can be a list. It can be a quote from the original input. So there’s more structure than just free text. Part of our research contribution is encouraging the model to give you an output with the correct structure. That significantly cuts down on post-processing time.”

      The approach can’t be applied to out-of-the-box health data at a hospital: that requires sending private patient information across the open internet to an LLM provider like OpenAI. The authors showed that it’s possible to work around this by distilling the model into a smaller one that could be used on-site.

      The model — sometimes just like humans — is not always beholden to the truth. Here’s what a potential problem might look like: Let’s say you’re asking the reason why someone took medication. Without proper guardrails and checks, the model might just output the most common reason for that medication, if nothing is explicitly mentioned in the note. This led to the team’s efforts to force the model to extract more quotes from data and less free text.

      Future work for the team includes extending to languages other than English, creating additional methods for quantifying uncertainty in the model, and pulling off similar results with open-sourced models. 

      “Clinical information buried in unstructured clinical notes has unique challenges compared to general domain text mostly due to large use of acronyms, and inconsistent textual patterns used across different health care facilities,” says Sadid Hasan, AI lead at Microsoft and former executive director of AI at CVS Health, who was not involved in the research. “To this end, this work sets forth an interesting paradigm of leveraging the power of general domain large language models for several important zero-/few-shot clinical NLP tasks. Specifically, the proposed guided prompt design of LLMs to generate more structured outputs could lead to further developing smaller deployable models by iteratively utilizing the model generated pseudo-labels.”

      “AI has accelerated in the last five years to the point at which these large models can predict contextualized recommendations with benefits rippling out across a variety of domains such as suggesting novel drug formulations, understanding unstructured text, code recommendations or create works of art inspired by any number of human artists or styles,” says Parminder Bhatia, who was formerly Head of Machine Learning at AWS Health AI and is currently Head of ML for low-code applications leveraging large language models at AWS AI Labs. “One of the applications of these large models [the team has] recently launched is Amazon CodeWhisperer, which is [an] ML-powered coding companion that helps developers in building applications.”

      As part of the MIT Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health, Agrawal, Sontag, and Lang wrote the paper alongside Yoon Kim, MIT assistant professor and CSAIL principal investigator, and Stefan Hegselmann, a visiting PhD student from the University of Muenster. First-author Agrawal’s research was supported by a Takeda Fellowship, the MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation, and the MLA@CSAIL Initiatives. More

    • 38 Shares189 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Celebrating open data

      by

      The inaugural MIT Prize for Open Data, which included a $2,500 cash prize, was recently awarded to 10 individual and group research projects. Presented jointly by the School of Science and the MIT Libraries, the prize recognizes MIT-affiliated researchers who make their data openly accessible and reusable by others. The prize winners and 16 honorable mention recipients were honored at the Open Data @ MIT event held Oct. 28 at Hayden Library. 

      “By making data open, researchers create opportunities for novel uses of their data and for new insights to be gleaned,” says Chris Bourg, director of MIT Libraries. “Open data accelerates scholarly progress and discovery, advances equity in scholarly participation, and increases transparency, replicability, and trust in science.” 

      Recognizing shared values

      Spearheaded by Bourg and Rebecca Saxe, associate dean of the School of Science and John W. Jarve (1978) Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, the MIT Prize for Open Data was launched to highlight the value of open data at MIT and to encourage the next generation of researchers. Nominations were solicited from across the Institute, with a focus on trainees: research technicians, undergraduate or graduate students, or postdocs.

      “By launching an MIT-wide prize and event, we aimed to create visibility for the scholars who create, use, and advocate for open data,” says Saxe. “Highlighting this research and creating opportunities for networking would also help open-data advocates across campus find each other.” 

      Recognizing researchers who share data was also one of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Open Access to MIT’s Research, which Bourg co-chaired with Hal Abelson, Class of 1922 Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. An annual award was one of the strategies put forth by the task force to further the Institute’s mission to disseminate the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible.

      Strong competition

      Winners and honorable mentions were chosen from more than 70 nominees, representing all five schools, the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, and several research centers across MIT. A committee composed of faculty, staff, and a graduate student made the selections:

      Yunsie Chung, graduate student in the Department of Chemical Engineering, won for SolProp, the largest open-source dataset with temperature-dependent solubility values of organic compounds. 
      Matthew Groh, graduate student, MIT Media Lab, accepted on behalf of the team behind the Fitzpatrick 17k dataset, an open dataset consisting of nearly 17,000 images of skin disease alongside skin disease and skin tone annotations. 
      Tom Pollard, research scientist at the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, accepted on behalf of the PhysioNet team. This data-sharing platform enables thousands of clinical and machine-learning research studies each year and allows researchers to share sensitive resources that would not be possible through typical data sharing platforms. 
      Joseph Replogle, graduate student with the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, was recognized for the Genome-wide Perturb-seq dataset, the largest publicly available, single-cell transcriptional dataset collected to date. 
      Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, graduate student with the MIT Media Lab/Art, Culture, and Technology, and Diana Duarte, co-founder at Diversa, won for Retos, an open-data platform for detailed documentation and sharing of local innovations from under-resourced settings. 
      Maanas Sharma, an undergraduate student, led States of Emergency, a nationwide project analyzing and grading the responses of prison systems to Covid-19 using data scraped from public databases and manually collected data. 
      Djuna von Maydell, graduate student in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, created the first publicly available dataset of single-cell gene expression from postmortem human brain tissue of patients who are carriers of APOE4, the major Alzheimer’s disease risk gene. 
      Raechel Walker, graduate researcher in the MIT Media Lab, and her collaborators created a Data Activism Curriculum for high school students through the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Students learned how to use data science to recognize, mitigate, and advocate for people who are disproportionately impacted by systemic inequality. 
      Suyeol Yun, graduate student in the Department of Political Science, was recognized for DeepWTO, a project creating open data for use in legal natural language processing research using cases from the World Trade Organization. 
      Jonathan Zheng, graduate student in the Department of Chemical Engineering, won for an open IUPAC dataset for acid dissociation constants, or “pKas,” physicochemical properties that govern how acidic a chemical is in a solution.
      A full list of winners and honorable mentions is available on the Open Data @ MIT website.

      A campus-wide celebration

      Awards were presented at a celebratory event held in the Nexus in Hayden Library during International Open Access Week. School of Science Dean Nergis Mavalvala kicked off the program by describing the long and proud history of open scholarship at MIT, citing the Institute-wide faculty open access policy and the launch of the open-source digital repository DSpace. “When I was a graduate student, we were trying to figure out how to share our theses during the days of the nascent internet,” she said, “With DSpace, MIT was figuring it out for us.” 

      The centerpiece of the program was a series of five-minute presentations from the prize winners on their research. Presenters detailed the ways they created, used, or advocated for open data, and the value that openness brings to their respective fields. Winner Djuna von Maydell, a graduate student in Professor Li-Huei Tsai’s lab who studies the genetic causes of neurodegeneration, underscored why it is important to share data, particularly data obtained from postmortem human brains. 

      “This is data generated from human brains, so every data point stems from a living, breathing human being, who presumably made this donation in the hope that we would use it to advance knowledge and uncover truth,” von Maydell said. “To maximize the probability of that happening, we have to make it available to the scientific community.” 

      MIT community members who would like to learn more about making their research data open can consult MIT Libraries’ Data Services team.  More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Data Management & Statistics

      Study finds the risks of sharing health care data are low

      by

      In recent years, scientists have made great strides in their ability to develop artificial intelligence algorithms that can analyze patient data and come up with new ways to diagnose disease or predict which treatments work best for different patients.

      The success of those algorithms depends on access to patient health data, which has been stripped of personal information that could be used to identify individuals from the dataset. However, the possibility that individuals could be identified through other means has raised concerns among privacy advocates.

      In a new study, a team of researchers led by MIT Principal Research Scientist Leo Anthony Celi has quantified the potential risk of this kind of patient re-identification and found that it is currently extremely low relative to the risk of data breach. In fact, between 2016 and 2021, the period examined in the study, there were no reports of patient re-identification through publicly available health data.

      The findings suggest that the potential risk to patient privacy is greatly outweighed by the gains for patients, who benefit from better diagnosis and treatment, says Celi. He hopes that in the near future, these datasets will become more widely available and include a more diverse group of patients.

      “We agree that there is some risk to patient privacy, but there is also a risk of not sharing data,” he says. “There is harm when data is not shared, and that needs to be factored into the equation.”

      Celi, who is also an instructor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and an attending physician with the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, is the senior author of the new study. Kenneth Seastedt, a thoracic surgery fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, is the lead author of the paper, which appears today in PLOS Digital Health.

      Risk-benefit analysis

      Large health record databases created by hospitals and other institutions contain a wealth of information on diseases such as heart disease, cancer, macular degeneration, and Covid-19, which researchers use to try to discover new ways to diagnose and treat disease.

      Celi and others at MIT’s Laboratory for Computational Physiology have created several publicly available databases, including the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC), which they recently used to develop algorithms that can help doctors make better medical decisions. Many other research groups have also used the data, and others have created similar databases in countries around the world.

      Typically, when patient data is entered into this kind of database, certain types of identifying information are removed, including patients’ names, addresses, and phone numbers. This is intended to prevent patients from being re-identified and having information about their medical conditions made public.

      However, concerns about privacy have slowed the development of more publicly available databases with this kind of information, Celi says. In the new study, he and his colleagues set out to ask what the actual risk of patient re-identification is. First, they searched PubMed, a database of scientific papers, for any reports of patient re-identification from publicly available health data, but found none.

      To expand the search, the researchers then examined media reports from September 2016 to September 2021, using Media Cloud, an open-source global news database and analysis tool. In a search of more than 10,000 U.S. media publications during that time, they did not find a single instance of patient re-identification from publicly available health data.

      In contrast, they found that during the same time period, health records of nearly 100 million people were stolen through data breaches of information that was supposed to be securely stored.

      “Of course, it’s good to be concerned about patient privacy and the risk of re-identification, but that risk, although it’s not zero, is minuscule compared to the issue of cyber security,” Celi says.

      Better representation

      More widespread sharing of de-identified health data is necessary, Celi says, to help expand the representation of minority groups in the United States, who have traditionally been underrepresented in medical studies. He is also working to encourage the development of more such databases in low- and middle-income countries.

      “We cannot move forward with AI unless we address the biases that lurk in our datasets,” he says. “When we have this debate over privacy, no one hears the voice of the people who are not represented. People are deciding for them that their data need to be protected and should not be shared. But they are the ones whose health is at stake; they’re the ones who would most likely benefit from data-sharing.”

      Instead of asking for patient consent to share data, which he says may exacerbate the exclusion of many people who are now underrepresented in publicly available health data, Celi recommends enhancing the existing safeguards that are in place to protect such datasets. One new strategy that he and his colleagues have begun using is to share the data in a way that it can’t be downloaded, and all queries run on it can be monitored by the administrators of the database. This allows them to flag any user inquiry that seems like it might not be for legitimate research purposes, Celi says.

      “What we are advocating for is performing data analysis in a very secure environment so that we weed out any nefarious players trying to use the data for some other reasons apart from improving population health,” he says. “We’re not saying that we should disregard patient privacy. What we’re saying is that we have to also balance that with the value of data sharing.”

      The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. More