• Skip to main content

SueMontgomeryRN's Organize the Essentials

Embracing Christian faith and simplicity to help Boomers prepare for the Final Moment.

  • Want Jesus?
  • Devotionals
  • Newsletter
  • Blog
  • Resources for the Journey
    • Dying Talks™
  • Resources for Spiritual Growth
  • Writing Services
    • Testimonials
    • Writing Projects
  • About
    • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Correction Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Copyright
    • Contact Sue
You are here: Home / Archives for Technology

Technology

Feb 15 2021

Giving God Elbow Room

Within my journey of reduced connectedness, I’m realizing how much more space I have available both mentally and spiritually.

Without technology’s continual clamor for my attention, I’m better able to breathe, pray, and find renewal within the peacefulness that results.

Better able to give God the elbow room needed within my attention span to do the work He wants to do.

Looking Up

​Lauren Daigle has an album that contains a song with the same name: “Look up, child.”

That’s what I hear God saying more and more—both within that quiet space when He calls me to prayer and connection with Him—and in the practical space of technology’s pull on my attention.

To look up from my smartphone and engage with the person who’s physically with me.

To push back from my monitor screen to give my undivided attention to whoever needs it or is blessing me by giving me theirs.

To sit on a blanket in the yard and look up at the beauty of God’s creation all around me to be renewed in the middle of the day—instead of spending this miraculous time scrolling through the world’s problems on my phone.

And of course, to drive without distractions and keep everyone on the road—including me and my passengers—safer as a result.

Disconnectedness vs Intermittent Connectedness

I’ve been thinking a lot about this disconnect kick I’m on.

Especially since I have several new technology clients—who may wonder about the wisdom of hiring a writer who talks in such a way.

But here’s the rub in all of that: I wholeheartedly believe in the benefits of technology.

Otherwise, I wouldn’t be so excited by the new things I learn and the technology offerings these wonderful companies create to help others.

And if I wasn’t excited, I surely wouldn’t be able to provide much marketing support as a writer.

So, I’m thinking perhaps I should reframe my journey a bit, and refer to it as one of “intermittent connectedness,” instead.

Because as I’ve said before, technology itself isn’t the issue—but how we use it and the role we allow it to play in our lives.

Within that context, what is a benefit for one may be a barrier for another.

And that’s something each one of us has to decide for ourselves.

This post is adapted from Sue’s Perspectives column in the latest edition of The Empowered Traveler™ Newsletter. If you’re not already a subscriber, you can do that here: Subscribe to Sue’s newsletter.

Written by Sue Montgomery · Categorized: Graceful Aging, Perspectives · Tagged: Simplicity, Technology

Feb 08 2021

Technology: Tool or tether?

When I first started working in hospice, I was the pediatric nurse for the agency, which required traveling throughout a very large county to see all the kids.

Since that was a loooong time ago, we didn’t even have cell phones then.

Which meant that I, like everyone else who worked in the field, carried a pager instead.

And lots of quarters to deposit in the pay phones that were well-known along our routes.

Eventually, everyone was given a cell phone—and I still remember my thrill when I moved into management, which meant a Blackberry, too.

Since I was so eager to be able to work from anywhere, I couldn’t believe I could actually check my email on the same device as my phone.

By that time, everyone had moved from paper to laptops—and eventually added wireless cards, which provided the ability to connect from most anywhere.

For me, that meant I could be even more connected than ever, which tickled me pink.

Working from anywhere

When I decided to leave hospice to work in my own business, the ability to work from anywhere became more important than ever.

That was especially true in the years that Mom’s health began to decline and she needed more support.

By then I had a smartphone, too, so when I was waiting for her at the beauty shop, doctor’s office, or even alongside the therapy pool—I often had my nose in a device so I could get my work done.

I became self-employed over 11 years ago, and I can’t begin to tell you how grateful I am that I’ve been able to work from anywhere all these years.

Being able to use technology in this way meant that I could be at home with Mom—and it’s given Dave and me the ability to live with a freedom that many would enjoy.

An insidious creep of dependence

But as mobile technology has advanced over the years, I believe there’s been an insidious creep of dependence that may not always be a good thing.

When smartphones first came out, they were novelties instead of the supposed essentials they’ve become today.

There weren’t nearly as many bells and whistles then—nor the security and privacy risks that accompany them.

And Big Tech didn’t have nearly the power that it increasingly applies.

Sure, it’s wonderful to have the world at your fingertips in your pocket or purse.

But what price do we pay for that type of convenience and accessibility?

What freedoms do we give up by being constantly tethered to tech?

What personal information are we dishing up on a platter for others to use and sell on a whim?

Disconnected freedom

In my recent journey to step away from continual connectedness, I’m finding that the freedoms I thought technology afforded me may have been restrictions, instead.

After all, distraction is draining—but focus is freeing.

Streaming is signal-dependent—while the oldies-but-goodies are tried-and-true friends.

Scrolling can be addictive—but a good book a relaxing escape.

Digital noise a familiar companion—but the stillness of quiet a soothing balm.

The negative effects of mobile-tech dependence are evidenced in various ways—including the fact that people pay perfectly good money for “digital detox” retreats instead of just turning off their smartphones now and then.

Yes, technology can provide freedom in many ways—unless the need for continual connectedness ends up taking us hostage, instead.

Used most effectively, technology should be a tool, not a tether.

Serving us—instead of the other way around.

This post is adapted from Sue’s Perspectives column in the latest edition of The Empowered Traveler™ Newsletter. If you’re not already a subscriber, you can do that here: Subscribe to Sue’s newsletter.

Written by Sue Montgomery · Categorized: Graceful Aging, Perspectives, Simplicity · Tagged: cybersecurity, Privacy, Technology

Feb 04 2021

Making the most of the desert

We all have desert experiences at some point in our lives.

Sometimes we have little say in the matter—like when a global pandemic hits and our social structures are turned upside down.

But other times, we choose to create greater solitude in some way—like when we intentionally disconnect from the always-on world of technology, which is currently a personal favorite of mine.

As I mentioned in another post, I recently started working my way through both the Old and New Testaments—reading one chapter from each daily, along with commentary from two Bible experts.

This week, I finished Genesis—which describes how a number of great leaders of faith made the most of their desert experiences to listen more closely to God and then act on what they heard through the power of that relationship.

There are many instances, but here I’ll talk about Noah, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses (who’s actually in Exodus).

I’m also nearing the end of Matthew, which means that I’ve read about John the Baptist’s seemingly odd lifestyle and ministry in the desert as he prepared the way for the coming Messiah (Matthew 3).

And through several instances in which Jesus purposely withdrew from the crowds to spend time alone with the Father (Matthew 14:13,23; 17:1-8).

Of course, He also had that notorious desert experience after John baptized Him: spending 40 very spartan days alone in the wilderness after which He was tempted by Satan when Jesus was at His most vulnerable (Matthew 4: 1-11).

That was a key desert experience, since He overcame those temptations as proof that He both knows what we endure in that sense, and that He can also provide the help needed to overcome them (Hebrews 4:15).

Finding purpose in the desert

A common thread that stood out to me in all those stories was that although God can certainly get our attention in any way He likes, it seems that those described were better able to hear God’s voice when they were in the desert alone.

Which may have been God’s purpose for placing them there.

After all, if Noah had received unquestioning support during all those years as he plodded through building a very big boat under sunny skies to supposedly save humanity from an existential flood—he likely wouldn’t have relied nearly as much on his relationship with God (Genesis 6:9-22; 7-9).

If Abraham and Sarah had been blessed with children right off the bat, he wouldn’t have had to count on God (over decades of waiting) to be true to His word about making him the father of a great nation (Genesis 11:30; 15; 17; 21:1-7).

And then there’s Joseph—whose story is one of my favorites in the Old Testament.

He was only 17 when he proclaimed to his brothers-who-already-didn’t-like-him-because-he-was-the-favorite that God had revealed to him in a dream that they would one day bow down to him.

If you have any sibling rivalry in your family, you can imagine how that went over.

Although Joseph was obviously someone special if he had that kind of connection with God, he lacked the spiritual maturity at that tender age to know that he would’ve been better off keeping such a revelation to himself.

Since he didn’t, his older brothers plotted against him and ended up throwing him into an empty well before deciding that—even better—they’d sell him into slavery in Egypt (with hearts cold and hard enough to tell their father that his favorite son had been killed by a wild beast).

Long-story-short, although Joseph spent a number of years in slavery and then jail, he didn’t dwell on the injustice of his situation and plan his revenge.

Instead, he made the most of that desert period by deepening his relationship with God—which meant he was able to provide divine insight at critical moments, eventually leading to his promotion to be Egypt’s second-in-command.

As a result of all that, he was able to reconcile with his brothers, enjoy a tearful reunion with his father, and save the nation of Israel from starvation.

That story covers several chapters (Genesis 37, 39-50), but one of the most significant moments occurs after their father dies and his brothers become fearful and try to find some way to say how sorry they are for all they’ve done to him.

But again, because of his deep relationship with God that had been refined during his desert experiences, Joseph’s response was loving, forgiving, and in recognition of God’s greater purposes: “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” (Genesis 50:19-20, NKJV).

As I moved from Genesis to Exodus in the last few days, I’ve been reading about Moses, who had a very dicey start in life—since, as an infant, he was placed in his own little ark among the reeds of the Nile river by his sister to save his life.

His long-story-short is that after being adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (though his mother was still able to raise him during his early years), he was groomed as an Egyptian who lived within the trappings of the palace (Exodus 2:1-10).

However, since he knew of his Hebrew roots, it was too much to take when he saw an Egyptian taskmaster beating one of his countrymen—which is why he murdered the Egyptian and was then forced to flee his royal life and start from scratch in a new land (Exodus 2:11-15).

It was when he was around 80 years old (Jeremiah Study Bible, p. 78), while tending sheep, alone and in the desert, that Moses noticed that odd bush that wouldn’t stop burning and heard the voice of God laying out His plans for him to return to Egypt and rescue the nation of Israel from slavery (Exodus 3; 4:1-17).

Embracing the riches of the desert

When Psalm 23 describes a place of rest and renewal, there are green pastures and quiet waters involved.

Perhaps that’s why we don’t normally think of the desert as a desirable place to be.

After all, it’s hot, dry, and much of the vegetation will prick you if you touch it.

However, from our various trips out west, I know the desert can be a pretty place, too—with lots of bright sunshine, blue skies, colorful flowers, and fluctuating temperatures from morning to night.

What I also like about the desert is how peaceful and quiet it can be.

Maybe all of that is why God has used it so frequently to both develop and connect with the great leaders of faith.

Because while He is certainly with us in the busy places of our lives, it is within the quiet that we can hear Him most clearly and discover the treasures waiting for us there.

That’s why I’m loving my current disconnect-from-tech journey so much.

I’ve written about embracing an analog life the last several weeks and those posts are on my blog if you haven’t seen them and want to.

However, while I’d been feeling so much more peaceful and focused as a result of purposefully limiting the always-on connection of my smartphone, I had two days this week in which I fell back into my old habit of taking it with me during my daily picnic lunch on a blanket in the yard with Blue.

Since I had it with me, I decided to read through the day’s news instead of enjoying the beautiful nature all around, praying, or reading a good book.

As a result, I found that I wasn’t nearly as peaceful as I’d been up to that point.

Instead, I was more distracted—which meant I was less able to focus on pausing and praying throughout the day.

Which meant I was also less able to sense the direction of the Holy Spirit in my new approach to a list-less life.

I have much more I’d like to say about all of that, but this post is getting to be long enough as it is.

So, I’ll close with this…

You know that flip phone I mentioned a few weeks ago?

That’s looking better all the time.

This post is adapted from Sue’s Perspectives column in the latest edition of The Empowered Traveler™ Newsletter. If you’re not already a subscriber, you can do that here: Subscribe to Sue’s newsletter.

Written by Sue Montgomery · Categorized: Graceful Aging, Perspectives, Simplicity · Tagged: Prayer, Technology

Jan 18 2021

Crawling through the trunk; turning off the tech

There are so many things happening in our world that I don’t know where to start.

So, I’ll start with locking my keys in the car at Walmart earlier this week.

I can’t even remember the last time I locked my keys in the car.

But I can definitely remember that I’ve never before crawled through the trunk and into the back seat to reach the rear-door latch.

(Fortunately, I’d popped the trunk hatch to load groceries before tossing my keys onto the floorboard and locking the door behind me).

Actually, none of that was a big deal.

I’m a pretty patient person and not easily frazzled, but I did think it was an interesting statement of our current times that no one walking by even batted an eye.

Well, since my head was in the trunk, none that I was aware of.

In the more-normal-days-of-the-past, I might’ve gotten a “Lady, are you okay?” or “Do you need some help?” or “Is that really your car?”

But no.

Between everyone minding their own business behind their masks and being preoccupied with their own stuff, I guess it’s now completely normal to see someone’s feet sticking out of a trunk in the middle of the Walmart parking lot.

Good to know.

The power of Big Tech

And then there was the seemingly-overnight shift in power by Big Tech and others to put a major squeeze on conservative voices that had a Carpenters’ tune running through my head: “We’ve only just begun…”

Those dynamics have caused me to take a major pause in terms of my reliance on the current state of technology offerings.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with technology itself, because it offers many benefits and can do a lot of good.

However, the negative stuff on social media and the ability for a few tech giants to take down a major conservative platform within a matter of days clarified my need to reduce my dependence on providers who may not agree with my Christian messaging (which means I’d love to see more technology providers—especially hosting infrastructure platforms—who do!).

Because I’m certainly not going to stop sharing the good news of Jesus—but it’s pretty clear that if the platforms I rely on to do that decide against permitting me to do so, that may find a way to do exactly that.

Plus, I’ve been getting increasingly aggravated by the intrusion of continual connectedness.

When technology takes over

For Christmas, I got a new pair of Bluetooth earbuds to use when I exercise and for video calls for work.

And twice, when I’ve picked them up to pop them in, Siri (which I thought was turned off) has somehow interpreted the generated noise as a request to dial someone on my business contact list with a name that’s difficult to pronounce and with whom I haven’t spoken in years.

Then there are the Windows updates on my PC.

I can’t tell you how aggravating it is to have specifically left work open to return to at a later point, only to find out that my computer has been shut down as part of the automatic update process (and I have absolutely no idea what’s being added to my computer as part of the process).

Or that I have to jump through the hoops of setting up my smartphone again because an update automatically installed overnight (again, I have no idea what’s being changed).

Now, I know there are continually evolving security risks and that those updates are necessary to address them.

But the connected nature of things is increasingly feeling like an invasion of my privacy and loss of control.

And I really like my privacy.

Plus, I’m not keen on giving up control unless it’s to God or to a person I specifically trust.

Reducing tech reliance

So, I started disconnecting from the internet by turning off the WiFi on my devices when I’m not using them.

And I’m evaluating my workflows to see what tech dependence I can eliminate in a new determination to return to a simpler way of life.

Which means that I recently deleted two of my favorite writing and productivity apps from my phone (painful).

And I’m using paper-based (yes, you read that right) processes as much as possible to gain more control of my privacy and to reduce my reliance on technology tools.

No, it won’t be the most efficient way of doing things.

Nor the most convenient.

But both of those benefits are a trap of technology, since Big Tech is counting on the fact that we can’t live without them.

However, I know people who live quite happily—and more peacefully—without any internet access at all.

They use paper calendars, lick stamps and envelopes to pay their bills, and know how to balance their checkbooks with a monthly statement that arrives in an actual mailbox that creaks when you open the door.

And to visit with those they love, they write a letter or pick up the phone to call or text.

Now, I certainly don’t plan to eliminate internet access.

After all, I make a living online (often writing about technology, in fact); there are many benefits to being intermittently connected; and that’s how I get to engage with you.

But one thing’s for sure.

When my current smartphone needs to be replaced, I’ll be considering a simple flip phone, instead.

This post is adapted from Sue’s Perspectives column in the latest edition of The Empowered Traveler™ Newsletter. If you’re not already a subscriber, you can do that here: Subscribe to Sue’s newsletter.

Written by Sue Montgomery · Categorized: Graceful Aging, Perspectives, Simplicity · Tagged: Graceful Aging, Technology

Jan 16 2020

A Reality Check On Artificial Intelligence: Are Health Care Claims Overblown?

Liz Szabo January 2, 2020

Health products powered by artificial intelligence, or AI, are streaming into our lives, from virtual doctor apps to wearable sensors and drugstore chatbots.

IBM boasted that its AI could “outthink cancer.” Others say computer systems that read X-rays will make radiologists obsolete.

“There’s nothing that I’ve seen in my 30-plus years studying medicine that could be as impactful and transformative” as AI, said Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. AI can help doctors interpret MRIs of the heart, CT scans of the head and photographs of the back of the eye, and could potentially take over many mundane medical chores, freeing doctors to spend more time talking to patients, Topol said.

Even the Food and Drug Administration ― which has approved more than 40 AI products in the past five years ― says “the potential of digital health is nothing short of revolutionary.”

Yet many health industry experts fear AI-based products won’t be able to match the hype. Many doctors and consumer advocates fear that the tech industry, which lives by the mantra “fail fast and fix it later,” is putting patients at risk ― and that regulators aren’t doing enough to keep consumers safe.

Early experiments in AI provide a reason for caution, said Mildred Cho, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford’s Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Systems developed in one hospital often flop when deployed in a different facility, Cho said. Software used in the care of millions of Americans has been shown to discriminate against minorities. And AI systems sometimes learn to make predictions based on factors that have less to do with disease than the brand of MRI machine used, the time a blood test is taken or whether a patient was visited by a chaplain. In one case, AI software incorrectly concluded that people with pneumonia were less likely to die if they had asthma ― an error that could have led doctors to deprive asthma patients of the extra care they need.

“It’s only a matter of time before something like this leads to a serious health problem,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic.

Medical AI, which pulled in $1.6 billion in venture capital funding in the third quarter alone, is “nearly at the peak of inflated expectations,” concluded a July report from the research company Gartner. “As the reality gets tested, there will likely be a rough slide into the trough of disillusionment.”

That reality check could come in the form of disappointing results when AI products are ushered into the real world. Even Topol, the author of “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again,” acknowledges that many AI products are little more than hot air. “It’s a mixed bag,” he said.

Experts such as Dr. Bob Kocher, a partner at the venture capital firm Venrock, are blunter. “Most AI products have little evidence to support them,” Kocher said. Some risks won’t become apparent until an AI system has been used by large numbers of patients. “We’re going to keep discovering a whole bunch of risks and unintended consequences of using AI on medical data,” Kocher said.

None of the AI products sold in the U.S. have been tested in randomized clinical trials, the strongest source of medical evidence, Topol said. The first and only randomized trial of an AI system ― which found that colonoscopy with computer-aided diagnosis found more small polyps than standard colonoscopy ― was published online in October.

Few tech startups publish their research in peer-reviewed journals, which allow other scientists to scrutinize their work, according to a January article in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Such “stealth research” ― described only in press releases or promotional events ― often overstates a company’s accomplishments.

And although software developers may boast about the accuracy of their AI devices, experts note that AI models are mostly tested on computers, not in hospitals or other medical facilities. Using unproven software “may make patients into unwitting guinea pigs,” said Dr. Ron Li, medical informatics director for AI clinical integration at Stanford Health Care.

AI systems that learn to recognize patterns in data are often described as “black boxes” because even their developers don’t know how they have reached their conclusions. Given that AI is so new ― and many of its risks unknown ― the field needs careful oversight, said Pilar Ossorio, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Yet the majority of AI devices don’t require FDA approval.

“None of the companies that I have invested in are covered by the FDA regulations,” Kocher said.

Legislation passed by Congress in 2016 ― and championed by the tech industry ― exempts many types of medical software from federal review, including certain fitness apps, electronic health records and tools that help doctors make medical decisions.

There’s been little research on whether the 320,000 medical apps now in use actually improve health, according to a report on AI published Dec. 17 by the National Academy of Medicine.

“Almost none of the [AI] stuff marketed to patients really works,” said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, professor of medical ethics and health policy in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The FDA has long focused its attention on devices that pose the greatest threat to patients. And consumer advocates acknowledge that some devices ― such as ones that help people count their daily steps ― need less scrutiny than ones that diagnose or treat disease.

Some software developers don’t bother to apply for FDA clearance or authorization, even when legally required, according to a 2018 study in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Industry analysts say that AI developers have little interest in conducting expensive and time-consuming trials. “It’s not the main concern of these firms to submit themselves to rigorous evaluation that would be published in a peer-reviewed journal,” said Joachim Roski, a principal at Booz Allen Hamilton, a technology consulting firm, and co-author of the National Academy’s report. “That’s not how the U.S. economy works.”

But Oren Etzioni, chief executive officer at the Allen Institute for AI in Seattle, said AI developers have a financial incentive to make sure their medical products are safe.

“If failing fast means a whole bunch of people will die, I don’t think we want to fail fast,” Etzioni said. “Nobody is going to be happy, including investors, if people die or are severely hurt.”

Relaxing Standards At The FDA

The FDA has come under fire in recent years for allowing the sale of dangerous medical devices, which have been linked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to 80,000 deaths and 1.7 million injuries over the past decade.

Many of these devices were cleared for use through a controversial process called the 510(k) pathway, which allows companies to market “moderate-risk” products with no clinical testing as long as they’re deemed similar to existing devices.

In 2011, a committee of the National Academy of Medicine concluded the 510(k) process is so fundamentally flawed that the FDA should throw it out and start over.

Instead, the FDA is using the process to greenlight AI devices.

Of the 14 AI products authorized by the FDA in 2017 and 2018, 11 were cleared through the 510(k) process, according to a November article in JAMA. None of these appear to have had new clinical testing, the study said. The FDA cleared an AI device designed to help diagnose liver and lung cancer in 2018 based on its similarity to imaging software approved 20 years earlier. That software had itself been cleared because it was deemed “substantially equivalent” to products marketed before 1976.

AI products cleared by the FDA today are largely “locked,” so that their calculations and results will not change after they enter the market, said Bakul Patel, director for digital health at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. The FDA has not yet authorized “unlocked” AI devices, whose results could vary from month to month in ways that developers cannot predict.

To deal with the flood of AI products, the FDA is testing a radically different approach to digital device regulation, focusing on evaluating companies, not products.

The FDA’s pilot “pre-certification” program, launched in 2017, is designed to “reduce the time and cost of market entry for software developers,” imposing the “least burdensome” system possible. FDA officials say they want to keep pace with AI software developers, who update their products much more frequently than makers of traditional devices, such as X-ray machines.

Scott Gottlieb said in 2017 while he was FDA commissioner that government regulators need to make sure its approach to innovative products “is efficient and that it fosters, not impedes, innovation.”

Under the plan, the FDA would pre-certify companies that “demonstrate a culture of quality and organizational excellence,” which would allow them to provide less upfront data about devices.

Pre-certified companies could then release devices with a “streamlined” review ― or no FDA review at all. Once products are on the market, companies will be responsible for monitoring their own products’ safety and reporting back to the FDA. Nine companies have been selected for the pilot: Apple, FitBit, Samsung, Johnson & Johnson, Pear Therapeutics, Phosphorus, Roche, Tidepool and Verily Life Sciences.

High-risk products, such as software used in pacemakers, will still get a comprehensive FDA evaluation. “We definitely don’t want patients to be hurt,” said Patel, who noted that devices cleared through pre-certification can be recalled if needed. “There are a lot of guardrails still in place.”

But research shows that even low- and moderate-risk devices have been recalled due to serious risks to patients, said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. “People could be harmed because something wasn’t required to be proven accurate or safe before it is widely used.”

Johnson & Johnson, for example, has recalled hip implants and surgical mesh.

In a series of letters to the FDA, the American Medical Association and others have questioned the wisdom of allowing companies to monitor their own performance and product safety.

“The honor system is not a regulatory regime,” said Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld, who chairs the physician group’s board of trustees.

In an October letter to the FDA, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) questioned the agency’s ability to ensure company safety reports are “accurate, timely and based on all available information.”

When Good Algorithms Go Bad

Some AI devices are more carefully tested than others.

An AI-powered screening tool for diabetic eye disease was studied in 900 patients at 10 primary care offices before being approved in 2018. The manufacturer, IDx Technologies, worked with the FDA for eight years to get the product right, said Dr. Michael Abramoff, the company’s founder and executive chairman.

The test, sold as IDx-DR, screens patients for diabetic retinopathy, a leading cause of blindness, and refers high-risk patients to eye specialists, who make a definitive diagnosis.

IDx-DR is the first “autonomous” AI product ― one that can make a screening decision without a doctor. The company is now installing it in primary care clinics and grocery stores, where it can be operated by employees with a high school diploma. Abramoff’s company has taken the unusual step of buying liability insurance to cover any patient injuries.

Yet some AI-based innovations intended to improve care have had the opposite effect.

A Canadian company, for example, developed AI software to predict a person’s risk of Alzheimer’s based on their speech. Predictions were more accurate for some patients than others. “Difficulty finding the right word may be due to unfamiliarity with English, rather than to cognitive impairment,” said co-author Frank Rudzicz, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Toronto.

Doctors at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital hoped AI could help them use chest X-rays to predict which patients were at high risk of pneumonia. Although the system made accurate predictions from X-rays shot at Mount Sinai, the technology flopped when tested on images taken at other hospitals. Eventually, researchers realized the computer had merely learned to tell the difference between that hospital’s portable chest X-rays ― taken at a patient’s bedside ― with those taken in the radiology department. Doctors tend to use portable chest X-rays for patients too sick to leave their room, so it’s not surprising that these patients had a greater risk of lung infection.

DeepMind, a company owned by Google, has created an AI-based mobile app that can predict which hospitalized patients will develop acute kidney failure up to 48 hours in advance. A blog post on the DeepMind website described the system, used at a London hospital, as a “game changer.” But the AI system also produced two false alarms for every correct result, according to a July study in Nature. That may explain why patients’ kidney function didn’t improve, said Dr. Saurabh Jha, associate professor of radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Any benefit from early detection of serious kidney problems may have been diluted by a high rate of “overdiagnosis,” in which the AI system flagged borderline kidney issues that didn’t need treatment, Jha said. Google had no comment in response to Jha’s conclusions.

False positives can harm patients by prompting doctors to order unnecessary tests or withhold recommended treatments, Jha said. For example, a doctor worried about a patient’s kidneys might stop prescribing ibuprofen ― a generally safe pain reliever that poses a small risk to kidney function ― in favor of an opioid, which carries a serious risk of addiction.

As these studies show, software with impressive results in a computer lab can founder when tested in real time, Stanford’s Cho said. That’s because diseases are more complex ― and the health care system far more dysfunctional ― than many computer scientists anticipate.

Many AI developers cull electronic health records because they hold huge amounts of detailed data, Cho said. But those developers often aren’t aware that they’re building atop a deeply broken system. Electronic health records were developed for billing, not patient care, and are filled with mistakes or missing data.

A KHN investigation published in March found sometimes life-threatening errors in patients’ medication lists, lab tests and allergies.

In view of the risks involved, doctors need to step in to protect their patients’ interests, said Dr. Vikas Saini, a cardiologist and president of the nonprofit Lown Institute, which advocates for wider access to health care.

“While it is the job of entrepreneurs to think big and take risks,” Saini said, “it is the job of doctors to protect their patients.”

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

This post first appeared on California Healthline  and is republished with permission.

Feature photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash.

Written by Sue Montgomery · Categorized: Graceful Aging · Tagged: Agile caregiving, Artificial Intelligence, digital health, Graceful Aging, healthcare, Technology

Jan 06 2020

Perspectives: 7 Reasons I left Facebook

Recently, I decided to make the somewhat-big decision to leave Facebook, for good.

There were a lot of reasons to stay—including the ability to maintain connections with more people and grow my reach as a writer.

However, when I looked at my pros and cons of leaving, the former won out.

I know Facebook provides a lot of value for many, and you may be one of them.

So, please know that when I provide the following list of reasons for leaving, I’m only referring to what I believe is right for me at this time in my life.

Here are 7 reasons I decided to leave Facebook:

  1. Data privacy and security. I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about this, so I won’t expound here. Instead, I encourage you to type in the phrase, “Facebook data privacy breach” and you’ll get a hefty list of articles from various sources about this well-known issue—including the fact that Facebook can still track user data after account deletion. Ugh.
  2. Quality of relationships. Although Facebook allows me to be aware of what more people are doing in their lives, it doesn’t help me to engage more deeply with them on a 1:1 level. I’d really rather enjoy a phone call, share a meal, or grab a cup of coffee (even have a conversation in a text) with someone than try to communicate within a party line environment or on the Messenger app—where Facebook may still be listening in.
  3. Quality of conversations. Along the same lines, I’d rather tell someone directly how wonderful their photos are so we can share a 1:1 conversation rather than do it with all of their friends sitting in the same room.
  4. Writing growth. Honestly, being on Facebook has made me a lazy digital writer. I say that in the context of using the platform to extend my reach—which is something writers who want to get published are told is a necessity. While Facebook may be an effective tool for doing so through increasing the number of followers and using targeted ads, relying on it in this way means I’ve focused less on the essentials of effective online writing—like keyword research and search engine optimization techniques. Thankfully, I’ve recently returned to both.
  5. Content ownership. Along the same lines, since Facebook owns the platform, it controls access to the content I publish there based on its ever-changing algorithms. Building an online presence solely on social media—which I fear too many writers are doing—amounts to renting, instead of owning, your digital presence.
  6. Time management. No matter how firmly I committed to completing a certain task or allotting a specific amount of time on Facebook, I usually found myself racing down the proverbial rabbit trail on a regular basis. I have so many other things I want to focus on, it just isn’t worth the distraction it causes.
  7. Peace of mind. The emotions that churn through my newsfeed are a little overwhelming at times—as is my response to them. Of course I care and want to pray for those in need, and I do. But by the time I get to that adorable animal video to cheer me up, I usually need it. I don’t think God intended for us to absorb all of the troubles and negative emotions of our hundreds of friends on an ongoing basis. Instead, I think He wants us to do life together in a more balanced and connected way—sharing each others joys and sorrows on an individual basis rather than through messages of mass communication.

I’ll be honest, the first few days of being off Facebook were an adjustment. I know I won’t be able to stay connected to as many people as before, but that’s okay. I’d rather enjoy quality relationships with a few than a shallow awareness of many.

I also enjoy the peacefulness I experience without the roar of my newsfeed beckoning me to jump in. It’s not an exaggeration. Facebook actually texted me to remind me to wish a friend happy birthday when my activity level dropped off.

As for my writing career and whether my move will limit my options for publication of all that I have planned—I’m pretty sure God doesn’t need Facebook to accomplish His purposes for what’s ahead.

This post first appeared in the December 7, 2019 edition of The Empowered Traveler™ Newsletter.

Feature photo by Mantas Hesthaven on Unsplash.

Written by Sue Montgomery · Categorized: Perspectives · Tagged: Technology

  • Terms of Use
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Correction Policy
  • Contact Sue
  • Home

Copyright © 2021 · Altitude Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in