[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
January 1/8, 2019

Humanizing Artificial Intelligence

Author Affiliations
  • 1Stanford University, Stanford, California
JAMA. 2019;321(1):29-30. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19398
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    2 Comments for this article
    Insightful case for AI in healthcare
    Xavier Barrera, MSc Computer Science | University of the Pacific
    A compelling short essay in on the question of whether artificial intelligence AI can help clinicians with the human side of healthcare. Answer: It can! This piece will no doubt inspire technologists and data scientists at the intersection of AI and medicine. Thanks you A. Verghese and S. T. Israni.
    Humanizing Artificial Intelligence
    Ian R. Lawson, M.D. | Retired
    That Osler was quoted in this otherwise excellent article may reflect our American addiction to reverence of the past, whether of our Constitution, what Presidents have written, or as here, what worthy physicians have said inappropriate to the present. Indeed, one doubts that Osler's aphorism was true in his own day, but his international distinction probably had his words enshrined.

    In addition to the anatomical and histologic manifestations of disease and its stages, modern medicine differentiates illness by chemical, molecular and genetic characters. What is thereby defined surely makes a great deal of difference to how the physician
    discusses the burden-benefits of therapeutic options, if any, with his/her patient; a discussion that surely occurred, however crudely, in Osler's day and is more refined in our own.

    It is a stretch of imagination to have a machine, however advanced in language and knowledge of the risks vs. benefits of decision, interact effectively towards, say, a man or a woman in advanced stages of their malignancy.