INTRODUCTION: An interdisciplinary panel, comprising professionals from medicine, AI and data science, law and ethics, and patient advocacy, convened to discuss key principles on regulation, implementation and evaluation of AI models in healthcare for Singapore. METHOD: The panel considered 14 statements split across 4 themes: "The Role and Scope of Regulatory Entities," "Regulatory Processes," "Pre-Approval Evaluation of AI Models" and "Medical AI in Practice". Moderated by a thematic representative, the panel deliberated on each statement and modified it until a majority agreement threshold is met. The roundtable meeting was convened in Singapore on 1 July 2024. While the statements reflect local perspectives, they may serve as a reference for other countries navigating similar challenges in AI governance in healthcare. RESULTS: Balanced testing approaches, differentiated regulatory standards for autonomous and assistive AI, and context-sensitive requirements are essential in regulating AI models in healthcare. A hybrid approach-integrating global standards with local needs to ensure AI comple-ments human decision-making and enhances clinical expertise-was recommended. Additionally, the need for patient involvement at multiple levels was underscored. There are active ongoing efforts towards development and refinement of AI governance guidelines and frameworks balancing between regulation and freedom. The statements defined therein provide guidance on how prevailing values and viewpoints can streamline AI implementation into healthcare. CONCLUSION This roundtable discussion is among the first in Singapore to develop a structured set of state-ments tailored for the regulation, implementation and evaluation of AI models in healthcare, drawing on interdisciplinary expertise from medicine, AI, data science, law, ethics and patient advocacy.
Singapore ; Humans ; Artificial Intelligence/standards* ; Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration*

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonography (US) is the current standard of care for imaging surveillance in patients at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been explored as an alternative, given the higher sensitivity of MRI, although this comes at a higher cost. We performed a cost-effective analysis comparing US and dual-sequence non-contrast-enhanced MRI (NCEMRI) for HCC surveillance in the local setting. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis of no surveillance, US surveillance and NCEMRI surveillance was performed using Markov modelling and microsimulation. At-risk patient cohort was simulated and followed up for 40 years to estimate the patients' disease status, direct medical costs and effectiveness. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. RESULTS: Exactly 482,000 patients with an average age of 40 years were simulated and followed up for 40 years. The average total costs and QALYs for the three scenarios - no surveillance, US surveillance and NCEMRI surveillance - were SGD 1,193/7.460 QALYs, SGD 8,099/11.195 QALYs and SGD 9,720/11.366 QALYs, respectively. CONCLUSION Despite NCEMRI having a superior diagnostic accuracy, it is a less cost-effective strategy than US for HCC surveillance in the general at-risk population. Future local cost-effectiveness analyses should include stratifying surveillance methods with a variety of imaging techniques (US, NCEMRI, contrast-enhanced MRI) based on patients' risk profiles.
Humans ; Adult ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/diagnostic imaging* ; Liver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging* ; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods*