As the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving aspects of healthcare delivery is increasingly becoming evident, it becomes likely that AI will be incorporated in routine clinical care in the near future. This promise has led to growing focus and investment in AI medical applications both from governmental organizations and technological companies. However, concern has been expressed about the ethical and regulatory aspects of the application of AI in health care. These concerns include the possibility of biases, lack of transparency with certain AI algorithms, privacy concerns with the data used for training AI models, and safety and liability issues with AI application in clinical environments. While there has been extensive discussion about the ethics of AI in health care, there has been little dialogue or recommendations as to how to practically address these concerns in health care. In this article, we propose a governance model that aims to not only address the ethical and regulatory issues that arise out of the application of AI in health care, but also stimulate further discussion about governance of AI in health care.

Summary In recent years, there has been massive progress in artificial intelligence (AI) with the development of deep neural networks, natural language processing, computer vision and robotics. These techniques are now actively being applied in healthcare with many of the health service activities currently being delivered by clinicians and administrators predicted to be taken over by AI in the coming years. However, there has also been exceptional hype about the abilities of AI with a mistaken notion that AI will replace human clinicians altogether. These perspectives are inaccurate, and if a balanced perspective of the limitations and promise of AI is taken, one can gauge which parts of the health system AI can be integrated to make a meaningful impact. The four main areas where AI would have the most influence would be: patient administration, clinical decision support, patient monitoring and healthcare interventions. This health system where AI plays a central role could be termed an AI-enabled or AI-augmented health system. In this article, we discuss how this system can be developed based on a realistic assessment of current AI technologies and predicted developments.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, has emerged as a transformative tool in healthcare, with the potential to revolutionize clinical decision-making and improve health outcomes. Generative AI, capable of generating new data such as text and images, holds promise in enhancing patient care, revolutionizing disease diagnosis and expanding treatment options. However, the utility and impact of generative AI in healthcare remain poorly understood, with concerns around ethical and medico-legal implications, integration into healthcare service delivery and workforce utilisation. Also, there is not a clear pathway to implement and integrate generative AI in healthcare delivery. Methods: This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of generative AI in healthcare, focusing on the utility of the technology in healthcare and its translational application highlighting the need for careful planning, execution and management of expectations in adopting generative AI in clinical medicine. Key considerations include factors such as data privacy, security and the irreplaceable role of clinicians’ expertise. Frameworks like the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) model are considered to promote responsible integration. These frameworks allow anticipating and proactively addressing barriers to adoption, facilitating stakeholder participation and responsibly transitioning care systems to harness generative AI’s potential. Results: Generative AI has the potential to transform healthcare through automated systems, enhanced clinical decision-making and democratization of expertise with diagnostic support tools providing timely, personalized suggestions. Generative AI applications across billing, diagnosis, treatment and research can also make healthcare delivery more efficient, equitable and effective. However, integration of generative AI necessitates meticulous change management and risk mitigation strategies. Technological capabilities alone cannot shift complex care ecosystems overnight; rather, structured adoption programs grounded in implementation science are imperative. Conclusions: It is strongly argued in this article that generative AI can usher in tremendous healthcare progress, if introduced responsibly. Strategic adoption based on implementation science, incremental deployment and balanced messaging around opportunities versus limitations helps promote safe, ethical generative AI integration. Extensive real-world piloting and iteration aligned to clinical priorities should drive development. With conscientious governance centred on human wellbeing over technological novelty, generative AI can enhance accessibility, affordability and quality of care. As these models continue advancing rapidly, ongoing reassessment and transparent communication around their strengths and weaknesses remain vital to restoring trust, realizing positive potential and, most importantly, improving patient outcomes.

Objectives To date, many artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been developed in healthcare, but adoption has been limited. This may be due to inappropriate or incomplete evaluation and a lack of internationally recognised AI standards on evaluation. To have confidence in the generalisability of AI systems in healthcare and to enable their integration into workflows, there is a need for a practical yet comprehensive instrument to assess the translational aspects of the available AI systems. Currently available evaluation frameworks for AI in healthcare focus on the reporting and regulatory aspects but have little guidance regarding assessment of the translational aspects of the AI systems like the functional, utility and ethical components. Methods To address this gap and create a framework that assesses real-world systems, an international team has developed a translationally focused evaluation framework termed ‘Translational Evaluation of Healthcare AI (TEHAI)’. A critical review of literature assessed existing evaluation and reporting frameworks and gaps. Next, using health technology evaluation and translational principles, reporting components were identified for consideration. These were independently reviewed for consensus inclusion in a final framework by an international panel of eight expert. Results TEHAI includes three main components: capability, utility and adoption. The emphasis on translational and ethical features of the model development and deployment distinguishes TEHAI from other evaluation instruments. In specific, the evaluation components can be applied at any stage of the development and deployment of the AI system. Discussion One major limitation of existing reporting or evaluation frameworks is their narrow focus. TEHAI, because of its strong foundation in translation research models and an emphasis on safety, translational value and generalisability, not only has a theoretical basis but also practical application to assessing real-world systems. Conclusion The translational research theoretic approach used to develop TEHAI should see it having application not just for evaluation of clinical AI in research settings, but more broadly to guide evaluation of working clinical systems.

What is the present performance of artificial intelligence (AI) decision support during embryo selection compared to the standard embryo selection by embryologists? AI consistently outperformed the clinical teams in all the studies focused on embryo morphology and clinical outcome prediction during embryo selection assessment. The ART success rate is ∼30%, with a worrying trend of increasing female age correlating with considerably worse results. As such, there have been ongoing efforts to address this low success rate through the development of new technologies. With the advent of AI, there is potential for machine learning to be applied in such a manner that areas limited by human subjectivity, such as embryo selection, can be enhanced through increased objectivity. Given the potential of AI to improve IVF success rates, it remains crucial to review the performance between AI and embryologists during embryo selection. The search was done across PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and IEEE Xplore from 1 June 2005 up to and including 7 January 2022. Included articles were also restricted to those written in English. Search terms utilized across all databases for the study were: (‘Artificial intelligence’ OR ‘Machine Learning’ OR ‘Deep learning’ OR ‘Neural network’) AND (‘IVF’ OR ‘in vitro fertili*’ OR ‘assisted reproductive techn*’ OR ‘embryo’), where the character ‘*’ refers the search engine to include any auto completion of the search term. A literature search was conducted for literature relating to AI applications to IVF. Primary outcomes of interest were accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the embryo morphology grade assessments and the likelihood of clinical outcomes, such as clinical pregnancy after IVF treatments. Risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Down and Black Checklist. Twenty articles were included in this review. There was no specific embryo assessment day across the studies—Day 1 until Day 5/6 of embryo development was investigated. The types of input for training AI algorithms were images and time-lapse (10/20), clinical information (6/20), and both images and clinical information (4/20). Each AI model demonstrated promise when compared to an embryologist’s visual assessment. On average, the models predicted the likelihood of successful clinical pregnancy with greater accuracy than clinical embryologists, signifying greater reliability when compared to human prediction. The AI models performed at a median accuracy of 75.5% (range 59–94%) on predicting embryo morphology grade. The correct prediction (Ground Truth) was defined through the use of embryo images according to post embryologists’ assessment following local respective guidelines. Using blind test datasets, the embryologists’ accuracy prediction was 65.4% (range 47–75%) with the same ground truth provided by the original local respective assessment. Similarly, AI models had a median accuracy of 77.8% (range 68–90%) in predicting clinical pregnancy through the use of patient clinical treatment information compared to 64% (range 58–76%) when performed by embryologists. When both images/time-lapse and clinical information inputs were combined, the median accuracy by the AI models was higher at 81.5% (range 67–98%), while clinical embryologists had a median accuracy of 51% (range 43–59%). The findings of this review are based on studies that have not been prospectively evaluated in a clinical setting. Additionally, a fair comparison of all the studies were deemed unfeasible owing to the heterogeneity of the studies, development of the AI models, database employed and the study design and quality. AI provides considerable promise to the IVF field and embryo selection. However, there needs to be a shift in developers’ perception of the clinical outcome from successful implantation towards ongoing pregnancy or live birth. Additionally, existing models focus on locally generated databases and many lack external validation. This study was funded by Monash Data Future Institute. All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. CRD42021256333