Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Bad bots: how should doctors respond to untested technologies?

Stephen H Bradley
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (683): 297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X703901
Stephen H Bradley
University of Leeds, Leeds. Email:
Roles: Clinical Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: medsbra@leeds.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

A CAUTIONARY TALE

The extraordinary rise and fall of Silicon Valley start-up Theranos is recounted in the unlikely page-turner Bad Blood.1 Only a few years ago, Theranos, and its iconic founder and supposed genius Elizabeth Holmes, were celebrated for their game-changing technology that was set to revolutionise diagnosis. With its promise of machines that could perform hundreds of blood tests on a single drop of blood, Theranos was valued at $9 bn, while Holmes was fêted with fame, honours, and awards. Her board was stacked with dignitaries such as elder statesmen Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. Such luminaries, along with investors like Rupert Murdoch, were all captivated by Holmes’s vision of painless, accurate, and cheap diagnostics that would save lives and make them billions.

The most remarkable part of the story is, of course, that the technology never worked. But almost 1 000 000 blood tests were performed by Theranos before the scandal was exposed. So much of the ‘fake-it-until-you-make-it’ hyperbole in Bad Blood calls to mind another ‘game changer’, Babylon Health. Outlandish claims unaccompanied by peer review evidence, misleading advertising,2 attempts to misrepresent3 and suppress critical regulatory outcomes,4 and an appetite for risk that most doctors would baulk at, run through the histories of both start-ups. Perhaps the most striking echo of Theranos is Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock’s unconditional infatuation with Babylon’s GP at Hand, which he describes, contrary to the evidence,5 as one of the technologies ‘... which can improve patient outcomes, freeing up clinicians’ time and make every pound go further’.6

OUT OF HAND

No doubt GP at Hand delivers on its advertised promise to streamline antibiotic treatment for the sore-throated,7 but Babylon’s ‘symptom checker’ chatbot appears to remain a work in progress. The incredible claims that have been made for the app include the boast, made to great fanfare last year, that it outperforms human doctors in postgraduate GP examinations8 and a prediction made by Babylon’s founder Ali Parsa in 2018 that the app would be ‘an order of magnitude more accurate than any human doctor’ by the end of the year.9 Patients who were triaged using Babylon’s software in a 111 pilot were presumably unaware that the firm’s software is prone to suggest an ambulance for a simple dry cough but miss the classic symptoms of a heart attack.10 Meanwhile, Babylon’s puff about GP-beating accuracy have been dismissed, albeit rather courteously, in an assessment in the Lancet.11

HOW SHOULD DOCTORS RESPOND?

Far from ushering in a great leap forward, the huge incentives to exaggerate benefits along with the limited capacity of regulators to reign in tech-chancers threatens a new dark age of waste and harm. When doctors try to sound the alarm we are dismissed as a conspiracy of luddites and ‘vested interests’. Politicians aren’t scientists: they tend to make decisions based on emotion and intuition without waiting for supporting evidence. So how can we be more persuasive?

Calling out unevidenced, misleading, or incorrect assertions is important but not enough. Referencing the Theranos story might help to temper some of the ‘fear of missing out’ with ‘fear of messing up’. Finding stories with an emotional ‘punch’ about the harms of under-tested technology is hard, but articulating, for example, indignation that desperately sick patients wait for hours for ambulances while we invest in hi-tech hotlines for the worried well is probably worth any number of statistics.12

But to help politicians and the public see through evidence-shy Svengalis, maybe we also need to get better at simplifying and explaining the story of medicine. In short, how constant iterative improvement (technology), demonstrated with proof (evidence), has transformed lives. Hopefully, in the end, our stories prove all the more persuasive for being true.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Carreyrou J
    (2018) Bad blood: secrets and lies in a Silicon Valley startup (Picador, London).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kleinman Z
    (Oct 3, 2018) BBC News, GP at Hand’s smartphone doctor ads ruled misleading. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45706812 (accessed 3 May 2019).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mayor S
    (2018) GP contests claim that online provider passed CQC inspection ‘with flying colours’ BMJ 360:k1404.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Heather B
    (Dec 8, 2017) Health Services Journal, Babylon CQC report published after injunction lifted. https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/babylon-cqc-report-published-after-injunction-lifted/7021266.article (accessed 3 May 2019).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Greenhalgh T,
    2. Shaw S,
    3. Wherton J,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Real-world implementation of video outpatient consultations at macro, meso, and micro levels: mixed-method study. J Med Internet Res 20(4):e150.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    (Nov 30, 2018) BBC News, Health Secretary Matt Hancock accused of breaking ethics rules. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46398174 (accessed 3 May 2019).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Cook J
    (Dec 13, 2018) GP Online, RCGP criticises GP at Hand video showing antibiotics prescribed for sore throat. https://www.gponline.com/rcgp-criticises-gp-hand-video-showing-antibiotics-prescribed-sore-throat/article/1521161 (accessed 3 May 2019).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Copestake J
    (Jun 27, 2018) BBC News, Babylon claims its chatbot beats GPs at medical exam. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44635134 (accessed 3 May 2019).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Finnegan G
    (Feb 19, 2018) Science Business, Your virtual doctor will see you now: AI app as accurate as doctors in 80% of primary care diseases. https://sciencebusiness.net/healthy-measures/news/your-virtual-doctor-will-see-you-now-ai-app-accurate-doctors-80-primary-care (accessed 3 May 2019).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cook J
    (Jul 13, 2018) Telegraph, AI doctor app Babylon fails to diagnose heart attack, complaint alleges. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/07/13/ai-doctor-app-babylon-fails-diagnose-heart-attack-complaint/ (accessed 3 May 2019).
  11. 11.↵
    1. Fraser H,
    2. Coiera E,
    3. Wong D
    (2018) Safety of patient-facing digital symptom checkers. Lancet 392(10161):2263–2264.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Copperfield
    (Jan 4, 2019) Pulse, The NHS is the little old lady waiting for an ambulance. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/copperfield-/the-nhs-is-the-little-old-lady-waiting-for-an-ambulance/20038039.article (accessed 3 May 2019).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (683)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 683
June 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bad bots: how should doctors respond to untested technologies?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Bad bots: how should doctors respond to untested technologies?
Stephen H Bradley
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (683): 297. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X703901

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Bad bots: how should doctors respond to untested technologies?
Stephen H Bradley
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (683): 297. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X703901
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • A CAUTIONARY TALE
    • OUT OF HAND
    • HOW SHOULD DOCTORS RESPOND?
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • It’s The Sun Wot Won It
  • The WHO’s definition of health: a baby to be retrieved from the bathwater?
  • Books: The Only Book I’ll Ever Write: When The Doctor Becomes The Patient
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242