[Reporter’s View] AI-assisted diagnosis and its hurdles

Advanced technologies such as AI-assisted diagnosis and robotic surgery are being actively introduced into the domestic medical field more than ever before.

 

Robotic surgery, which was first introduced 20 years ago, has now become the standard treatment in many fields.

 

For example, the Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System, introduced in 2005, has since performed a cumulative total of approximately 370,000 robot-assisted surgeries in Korea, and currently, more than 200 systems are in operation in Korea.

 

This quantitative growth is the result of the efforts of medical professionals and their willingness to embrace innovation.

 

In fact, robotic surgery has demonstrated clinically significant benefits, such as a 75% reduction in blood transfusions during surgery, a 44% reduction in postoperative complications, and a 46% reduction in mortality, and is recognized as one of the global standards for minimally invasive treatment.

 

AI-assisted diagnostic technologies are also being developed, with domestic medical AI startups such as Lunit, Vuno, and Neurophet gaining prominence.

 

The global medical AI market is rapidly expanding, with the market size expected to grow from approximately USD 1.3 billion in 2023 to USD 3.7 billion by 2028.

 

In Korea, innovative medical devices such as AI software for early cancer diagnosis are garnering attention as a potential next-generation industry.

 

Although resistance to innovative technology has decreased compared to the past, conservative views still remain in the medical community.

 

In other words, the view is that advanced technology should only play a supporting role rather than a leading role.

 

In fact, at a briefing held by a global medical device company that this reporter attended, while emphasizing the company's achievements, the company was cautious in answering questions about the possibility of such devices completely replacing doctors.

 

In particular, the word “assistant” was mentioned in the press material, highlighting how robots would play an “assistant role” rather than replacing doctors.

 

"Even with cutting-edge technologies, the company’s approach reflects the industry’s  cautious stance, which emphasizes that technology should not overtake the role of physicians, given the unique nature of medicine." Behind this cautious attitude in the medical field lie concerns about safety and reliability.

 

In fact, when AI is applied to actual clinical practice, there are cases where its accuracy falls short of expectations.

 

For example, there is a domestic report that an AI diagnostic solution, which was evaluated with an “excellent” rating with a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 88.6%, had a sensitivity of only 54.9% in actual field diagnosis.

 

In addition, the possibility of AI misdiagnosis, vague anxiety about the replacement of medical personnel, and the unclear accountability in the event of a malfunction are some of the key concerns raised by the medical community.

 

Such discrepancies between laboratory performance and actual clinical outcomes inevitably lead to a lack of trust among medical staff, which explains why a degree of skepticism remains.

 

However, there are also opinions that we should not miss opportunities for innovation due to vague fears about technology.

 

Although concerns about AI doctors replacing human doctors have been raised since the beginning, AI introduced into clinical practice has been proven to improve the quality of medical care and benefit more patients as an auxiliary tool.

 

By serving as an extension of doctors' hands and eyes, AI is bringing about better outcomes for patients.

 

Ultimately, the key lies not in the technology itself, but in the attitude and approach toward accepting it.

 

Innovation and conservatism are always in a tense balance, even more so in the field of medicine, where human lives are at stake.

 

However, for the sake of a better future for patients, it is sometimes necessary to take bold steps toward change.

 

It is this reporter’s hope to see a future where innovation is embraced, but only with the wisdom to thoroughly evaluate and mitigate its risks."