AI to forecast health interventions based on nationwide NHS data
A new AI model will be trained on a large set of NHS data in hopes of identifying early interventions for patient care.
The generative AI model, called Foresight, is being trained on de-identified data from 57 million people in England as part of a pilot study conducted by University College London (UCL) and King's College London (KCL).
De-identified data is data in which personal information has been stripped away, meaning it is not possible to link back to an individual, ensuring privacy. Access to the data is within the NHS England Secure Data Environment (SDE), a secure data and research analysis platform.
The model is being trained on routinely collected NHS data such as hospital admissions and Covid-19 vaccination rates. The model could make predictions about health outcomes across all demographics and for rare conditions due to the size of the dataset and its coverage of England's population.
The researchers also aim to harness the model to address health inequalities, analysing risks and outcomes at the population level.
UCL Institute of Health Informatics' Dr Chris Tomlinson, who is serving as lead researcher of the study, said: 'AI models are only as good as the data on which they're trained. So, if we want a model that can benefit all patients, with all conditions, then the AI needs to have seen that during training.
"Using national-scale data allows us to represent the kaleidoscopic diversity of England's population, particularly for minority groups and rare diseases, which are often excluded from research.'
Foresight comes at a time of increased focus on digital technology to level up healthcare in the UK by the government. The Health Data Research Service, a tool that simplifies access to health data to accelerate research, was launched in April 2025. Partnered with the Wellcome Trust, the government has pledged up to £600m to enhance the use of NHS data on a national scale.
UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting has touted the importance of harnessing NHS data since entering office in July 2024. In November, he remarked at a conference that citizens should 'view their data in the same way they view their taxes'.
In a statement following Foresight's announcement, Streeting said: 'I'm determined that we use this kind of groundbreaking technology to cut down on unnecessary hospital trips, speed up diagnosis times, and free up staff time.
'AI will be central as we bring our analogue NHS into the digital age to deliver faster and smarter care across the country.'
"AI to forecast health interventions based on nationwide NHS data" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When Letting Your Mind Wander Helps You Learn
While you do the dishes or drive to work, your mind is likely not on the task at hand; perhaps you're composing a grocery list or daydreaming about retiring in Italy. But research published in the Journal of Neuroscience suggests you might be taking in more than you think. During a simple task that requires minimal attention, mind wandering may actually help people learn probabilistic patterns that let them perform the task better. 'The idea to study the potentially beneficial influence of mind wandering on information processing occurred to us during the COVID pandemic, when we had plenty of time to mind wander,' says Péter Simor, lead author of the recent study and a psychology researcher at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. Study participants practiced a simple task in which they pressed keyboard buttons corresponding to the direction of arrows that lit up on a screen. But there were patterns hidden within the task that the participants were unaware of—and they learned these patterns without consciously noticing them. The researchers found that when participants reported letting their minds wander, they adapted to the task's hidden patterns significantly faster. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] 'This is an exciting and important piece of work, especially because the authors opted for a nondemanding task to check how [mind wandering] would affect performance and learning,' says Athena Demertzi, a cognitive and clinical neuroscientist at the University of Liège in Belgium. Previous related research focused more on long and demanding tasks, she says—on which zoning out is typically shown to have a negative effect. But the results are not clear-cut, says Jonathan Smallwood, a psychology researcher at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. 'I don't think that this means the spontaneous mind-wandering episodes themselves cause implicit learning to occur,' he says. 'Rather both emerge at the same time when people go into a particular state.' Neither Smallwood nor Demertzi was involved in the new study. Simor, who studies sleep, was interested in whether participants' mind wandering displayed any neural hallmarks of dozing off. Using electroencephalogram recordings, the team showed that in those test periods, participants' brains produced more of the slow waves that are dominant during sleep. Perhaps, the researchers say, mind wandering is like a form of light sleep that provides some of that state's learning benefits. To better understand whether mind wandering might compensate for lost sleep, Simor and his colleagues next plan to study narcolepsy and sleep deprivation. 'We know that people spend significant amounts of time not focused on what they are doing,' Smallwood says. 'The authors' work is important because it helps us understand how reasonably complex forms of behavior can continue when people are focused on other things—and that even though our thoughts were elsewhere, the external behavior can still leave its mark on the person.'
Scientific American
42 minutes ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Robby's Radar: Elon Musk should join the Libertarian Party
I have an idea for Elon Musk: join the Libertarian Party! Actually, don't just join it — take it over! Let me explain. Musk and President Trump seem to have entered some kind of détente following their big blowup last week. The world's richest man is no longer tweeting constantly about Trump being on the Epstein client list, or about how he feels betrayed over the big beautiful bill, which will massively increase the deficit despite Republican promises to finally cut government spending. In fact, he's spent the last several days tweeting about the Los Angeles riots and the importance of emerging AI technology. Trump, for his part, is refusing to engage Elon with particular hostility. Trump recently told reporters that he would be keeping the Tesla he bought from Musk, that he would continue using Starlink, Musk's internet service, and that he wished Elon well. I try not to make political predictions, but it actually would not surprise me in the least if Trump and Elon makeup — or at the very least, if the Republican Party maintains a friendly enough connection to Elon so that the tech billionaire remains a financial backer of, say, Vice President JD Vance when he inevitably runs for president. But here's an alternative idea I'd like to plan in Musk's head, as he is currently party shopping. As a Libertarian Party member, and voter, I would be thrilled to welcome Elon into the party — and I suspect I wouldn't be alone. After all, the Libertarian Party is a natural fit for Elon, whose politics mostly seem to align with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, the two most libertarian members of Congress in the Republican Party. Elon wants low taxes, lower spending, low regulation, and thinks the federal government's priorities should reflect that: Cut the deficit first, get our fiscal house in order, and worry about the other stuff later. He also wants government regulations to be friendly to technological growth, is particularly motivated to prevent censorship on social media, and thinks the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic was authoritarian. These are all textbook libertarian issues. What's more, the current trajectory of the Libertarian Party makes it ideal for some new leadership. For years, the party has been the nation's third or fourth largest, alongside the Green Party. In the 2016 election, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received 4.5 million votes and about 3 percent of the national vote, a record at the time. In 2020, the Libertarian nominee received about 1 percent of the national vote. In both of those elections, it finished ahead of the Green Party. Behind the scenes, however, the party has gone through something for a transformation over the last two cycles. Johnson, the 2016 nominee, was perceived by some within the Libertarian Party as too liberal and mainstream — not based enough to attract contrarians and dissidents to the party. In response, a faction calling itself the Mises Caucus formed and attempted to take control of the party. In 2022, they succeeded. Their strategy was podcast-focused: Find people who listen to Joe Rogan and like-minded independent thinkers and draw them to the Libertarian Party. The strategy had a certain amount of merit. The party ended up flirting with Robert F Kennedy Jr., and found itself having significant audience overlap with him. But eventually, Kennedy made a quasi-endorsement of Trump and essentially withdrew from the presidential race. Meanwhile, at the Libertarian National Convention, delegates bucked the Mises Caucus and picked their least preferred candidate, Chase Oliver. In response, the Mises Caucus leadership barely tolerated the Libertarian candidate, hindering his campaign in numerous ways. The party's chairwoman, Angela McArdle, the highest-ranking Mises Caucus official, subsequently resigned from the party. The new chair is not a member of this faction and is trying to chart a more neutral course and reunite the party, though the Mises Caucus has vowed to retake control. So that's where we are now: The Libertarian Party could use some new people, some new leadership, and probably a new infusion of cash. If Elon Musk really wants to make Republicans sorry that they failed to live up to his expectations and cut government spending — but quite rationally believes that Democrats will never ever, ever do better — he might find he has the most in common with the ticket that gets my vote every year. Robbie Soave is co-host of The Hill's commentary show 'Rising' and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary.
