STAT+: As medical AI use grows, industry payments to providers remain opaque
\n \t
\n
<\/BR>
\n
\n \t
\n
<\/BR><\/p>\n
Artificial intelligence has danced around the fringes of prostate cancer for years, but in 2024, it got a profile-raising boost: An AI tool that could use biopsy images and clinical data to predict therapy benefits and a patient\u2019s prognosis was recommended in a set of widely used guidelines for oncology care.<\/p>\n
\u201cI remember being so impressed,\u201d said David-Dan Nguyen, a urology resident at the University of Toronto who focuses on prostate cancer. But he was also curious: How exactly does a new device make it into clinical standards? He started to look into whether its manufacturer had made any payments to hospitals or doctors in the leadup to its guideline inclusion \u2014 to support research, perhaps, or to cover fees for consulting or marketing.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When he looked at Open Payments<\/a>, the federal database of industry payments to clinicians and teaching hospitals, he didn\u2019t see any. \u201cThat really started sparking a thought in the back of my mind,\u201d said Nguyen, who decided to keep looking for payments made by manufacturers of AI devices authorized by the Food and Drug Administration<\/a>. In a research letter published Monday in JAMA<\/a>, he and his co-authors found fewer than 10% of nearly 850 AI devices were linked to payments between 2017 and 2023.\u00a0<\/p>\n Continue to STAT+ to read the full story\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n