It is predicted, (or already happening ) atleast 30 % of clinical consults happen with AI assistsnce or with completely with machines.
The Initial work up is suggested by the AI bots, even in ER rooms. They may be right in 80% of times. But, who is it to filter and grab those remaining 20%. No one , except a astutely learnt clinician. Unfortunately, there is no super AI to do this job.
Final message
This is the beginning of, a new exciting & dangerous era, for the medical profession. If we are not vigilant or loose our common sense, these bots will soon reach their next destination, ie patient’s bed side.
Reference
BMJ in its current Issue address these aspects of increasing AI usage in the clinical consults
An Awakening Call to the Guardians of Medical Science
Dr. Venkatesan Sangareddi MD, Former professor of cardiology, Madras medical college,Chennai .India
Medical science remains a cornerstone of human progress, and what we have achieved in the last 100 years is unprecedented. Every one of us is aware that the trust placed in medical research is sacred. Also, the medical profession is expected to remain noble as long as human beings exist. However, as in all walks of life, there must be trade-offs to any positives. Yes, this trust has increasingly become vulnerable, threatened by the pervasive and often subtle influence of conflicts of interest (COI). This is especially explicit in the current medical research landscape.
While the scientific community has made strides in acknowledging and requiring disclosure of COIs, particularly from authors , the measures are proving insufficient. There is a big irony sitting right across us. It is made to look, as if conflicts of Interest (COI) exist only with the authors.
The following article written by the author (Ref 1) calls for an awakening to every medical journal publishers, regardless of their prestige or impact factor, to recognize their vulnerability . We are expected to adopt a new paradigm of transparency in declaring COI, that extends to every participant in the publication process, including the scientific or ethical committies that approve the study ,the peer reviewers, the publishers and finally to the industries that fund the research.
Reference
1,Click here to download the full paper:A caution: It is a fairly lengthy article. (15 minutes read) Hope the suggestions made in the article are not labeled as unrealistic and possibly crazy as well.
“In one sense, meta-analysis would come closer to a milder form of ethical plagiarism”
Can meta-analysis really be called as original scientific research ?
No it is not,but some may say yes. It is very difficult to dispute either. But, the fact of the matter is, meta-analyses are not a true science of innovation. It is using some others’ work( sort of intellectual steal ?) done by a group of scientists interested in the same research topic, trying to squeeze more info from these studies. It is a glorified group journal club activity.
At best, meta-analysis can be referred to as knowledge and evidence aggregation. Surprisingly, mostof the academia seems to give more weight to meta-analysis, disproportionately more than the original researchers. This is because meta-analytic scientists backed by big journals claim, they can bring out more info out of the original. The assumed scientific superiority of meta-analysis is expected to be downgraded soon, as these sort of evidence aggregation can be done easily by any AI-powered engines. Network meta analysis, by dedicated medical scholastic AI networks can do this in a fraction of a second.
Meta analyses as of now is sitting proudly as crowning glory at the top of evidence pyramid. This is one of the reasons for the false glory surrounding anyone (or anything ) associated with meta-analyses. I doubt whether it really deserve the top slot. (An excellent debate between RCT vs metanalysis) Wish, the meta-analysis taste its own medicine at least once. We need to have a meta-analysis to show it is really superior to other forms of evidence. I cant find one as yet.
What about systematic review ? This looks better, as it has less statistical content , and the researcher is at least compelled to go deep and get enlightened on the topic as they spend months together on the topic.
How is meta analysis different from original research?
There is no new data collection ,no primary hypothesis testing . It primarily focus on summarizing existing evidence. To do it properly, there are certain standards.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology)
While meta-analyses aren’t original research, it’s a crucial tool for evidence synthesis, research translation informed decision-making.
Flaws of metanalysis
It is a academic business with done studies. So it is 100% retrospective. It might come with irreversible errors. Unless every error in the past studies is accounted for and curated the result of meta-analysis, it can never be foolproof.
Should we get permission from all the authors who did their original studies before doing a meta-analysis?
As long as fair use criteria applies there is no need , but a moral obligation is definitely there . Other wise metanalyses will come closer to a milder form of academic plagiarism of others’ work. (Of course legally and scientifically approved)
Final message
In the world of true scientific research, meta-analyses can not be considered as great scientific work. It is just evidence aggregation, which of course could be meaningful if and only if the studies taken were done properly.
However, meta-analysis has undisputed value in aggregating rare cases, scenarios, diseases, and problems where there are very few published studies. Collecting them together in an organized fashion serves a real good purpose.
A set of attitudes, habits, or possessions associated with a particular person or group. and such attitudes, etc, are regarded as fashionable or desirable.
Final message
Communicable disease need not be an Infectious disease like covid. The word “Communicable” shall soon convey a new meaning, to the enlightened. Adverse life styles ,disseminated into the community that vigorously propagate CVD, has every reason to be referred to as a ‘Neo non-infectious pandemic”
Postamble
In the strict sense, CVD is not a communicable disease ,rather the risk factors are …but technically it is.
As the medical literature expands exponentially, the quality and intent of the research questions sound awry. There are only a handful of journals like JAMA that are bold enough to ask some tough and pragmatic questions in this glitzy world of medical extravaganza.
The current issue wants to set the pace for an important debate, on a topic that is rarely discussed.
Check whether your answers concur with this crucial query from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Three questions this article wishes to address.
1.What is the reason it is happening?
2. What are the implications?
3. What can be done for it?
My thoughts
“It is indeed over diagnosed. Once labeled, a chain reaction is set in. The cost, and resource consumption that follow a misdiagnosis are nearly identical to that of a true MI. More than that, the adversities of the tense investigative protocol can convert a misdiagnosis into a real one because that sadly includes even an overzealous poking right at the mouth of the coronary artery just o exclude a non existing MI . and ICU-related anxiety stand apart in this scientific comical game of ruling out a cardiac emergency.
The paper seems to blame mostly on the powerful screening test high sensitivity Troponin, Everyone will agree it has a major role in this. But, the more important reason is the cardiology community’s vigorous adoption of a universal definition of MI criteria (which is never intended to apply at the bedside) .Next factor is probably more important. The fear of missing a potential MI and legal consequences thereafter. I wish, the experts who sit on medical juries need to learn few extra lessons in the art of medical uncertainties.
Medical jurists, need to take some Intellectual cues from their criminal courts. How is it that, even well-planned criminal murders are successfully allowed to be argued and won in courts,…while inadvertent events such as missing aninconsequential MI by doctors are rarely pardoned?
How to avoid over diagnosis of MI ?
In this scenario, It is sad, that only very few cardiologists have the guts to ignore this omnipotent molecular sub-fraction of cardiac muscle Troponin, with their clinical skills. What we can do, at our level is to incorporate a new term “benign or micro myocardial Infarction” – akin to lacunar infarcts or TIA equivalents of the brain in the heart. We need to de-list the vast majority of chronic ischemic,non-ischemic, or systemic causes of Troponin leaks from the myocardial infarction chart. Physicians must realize, that protocol violation should not be deemed a crime always, rather it has a sure potential to benefit your patient if it is done properly and intelligently.
Final message
Recently one cardiologist in a sub-urban center was thrashed both physically and in social media ,for missing an ACS , which was subsequently recognised and treated well and good.
“Doctors should be legally allowed,* (rather forgiven) to make permissible levels of errors in the medical decision-making process ” like any other profession .However, we must ensure our constant pursuit towards zero error, which may not be possible always. This should include overlooking apparently positive lab results if they have reasonably applied their clinical acumen. *Until this happens, the unquantifiable suffering of our patients* due to over-diagnosis and inappropriate interventions can not be reigned in.
*Maybe, this sounds more controversial statement in my 15 years of writing. Beloved patients shall note, it is a rare for me to make what probably, look like an anti-patient statement. Till now, I have been blamed my many of our colleagues, as self slandering my own profession for too many errors in many of the posts. Nothing can be done for this. When you search for truths , you need to tolerate all these.
This sound bite is regularly uttered by all academic leads in any university or medical school. I don’t know, why this bothers me. Looking back, many of our mentors & professors never had any great publications. Still, they were extraordinary teachers and wonderful clinicians with great wisdom. They created generations of high-quality doctors who are present all over the globe now. Is scientific publication that important in a doctor’s life? After pondering for quite some time, got a hazy answer to that query in one of my sleepless early morning academic dreams.
Hippocrates was one of the applicants for the post of professor of medicine at Harvard medical school.His application was rejected for a dismally low H index. The reluctant father of medicine tried to impress the authorities, by telling them that his experience was vast and used to teach medicine 2000 years ago, well before their country USA was discovered. The father of medicine almost begged to reconsider their decision.The miffed Harvard academic office ridiculed the old man and insisted nothing will work, except a minimum H index of 50 or atleast 10 papers as first author in a peer reviewed high Impact factor journal. A dejected Hippocrates returned to Kos islands and asked his new generation fellows, what is this H index and Impact factor stuff ? His students were worried about their guru’s ignorance. They some how convinced the greatest ever medical teacher to urgently subscribe for a platinum membership of a premium medical authourship services located in the Boston suburb and fixed a 30 day deadline for his first manuscript.
Now, let us travel back in time,2000 years ago to this picturesque nation, Kos islands in the Aegean sea,. This is where Hippocrates taught lessons under his favorite tree. No teaching apps, No 4k audiovisuals, The humble noise from within his lips became great wisdom thoughts. All that students had were set of ears to hear him. Hippocrates became the celebrated father of medicine for two reasons. He was the first to dispute the then-prevailing thoughts about human health and disease. He first proposed for every illness there is a hidden reason ie the beginning scientific basis. He insisted and negated the idea that diseases are bestowed upon by evil forces and spirits. The second one is more important. He realized knowledge, skill, and power are a deadly mix for the healing industry if they lack responsibility. He foresaw non-academic factors that will try to challenge the integrity of medical professionals and the health care delivery systems. It is astonishing to note how he could predict this 2000 years ago and wrote the behavior code for medical professionals which has become immortal.
How to grade the quality of medical professionals?
Scientific publication is just one of the indices of quality assessment for medical professionals. Grading them based on a few manufactured rating systems is beginning to look like an academic comical. There are many more visible and invisible, quantifiable and non-quantifiable quality assessment parameters that deserve attention.
Research & Innovations are indeed the pivotal pillars that take us to newer frontiers of medicine. But, It is explicitly clear now, the prime purpose of research is definitely not aimed at the growth of science. It is more of a survival tool, intertwined with commerce, status symbol, pride, peer pressure, self-esteem, rivalry, or just a filler for CV.
Final message
Blanket statements like Publish or perish at any cost could be a dangerous doctrine to adopt in medical education which is essentially about healing and caring (& whenever possible, curing). In one sense, medical teaching is little to do with research. Many of the great professors in our country never published a single paper. Unfortunately, research and teaching have been made to look inseparable. Beware, history has repeatedly taught us medical professionals need not be hyper-intelligent. They need to be just wise, men /women of integrity, enriched with sincerity, righteousness. Proper consumption of knowledge is much more important than the creation of it. Let us hope the future will be at least as perfect as the past.
Postamble
My H index stands at 15, I must confess I am confused a lot. Should I bother for more, or be just be happy to reach the H index of our mentor and father of medicine, which is numero Zero, and propagate his work.
2.Academic excellence does not always require publication Ernest L Boyer argued in his 1990 book, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate,(BoyerScholarshipReconsidered)
The contents of the this blog is being published as Kindle E book , as per the request of many of the readers. Every article will continue to be open source in this site. Again I shall reiterate the book format is not aimed at any commercial intent. It is only to facilitate learning in a single book format Here is the link to book https://amzn.in/d/euhL5vu
Click below to see who is watching this website live !
This site will never aim for profit. Still ,this donation link is added at the request of few visitors who wanted to contribute and of-course that will help make it sustainable .
Please Note
The author acknowledges all the queries posted by the readers and wishes to answer them .Due to logistic reasons only few could be responded. Inconvenience caused is regretted.
Dr.S.Venkatesan MD 
