Guiding principles for the responsible development of artificial intelligence tools for healthcare.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Badal K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10066953 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Guiding principles for the responsible development of artificial intelligence tools for healthcare.
Badal Kimberly K Lee Carmen M CM Esserman Laura J LJ
Communications medicine 20230401 1
Several principles have been proposed to improve use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, but the need for AI to improve longstanding healthcare challenges has not been sufficiently emphasized. We propose that AI should be designed to alleviate health disparities, report clinically meaningful outcomes, reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, have high healthcare value, consider biographical drivers of health, be easily tailored to the local population, promote a learning healthcare sys ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundColposcopy diagnosis and directed biopsy are the key components in cervical cancer screening programs. However, their performance is limited by the requirement for experienced colposcopists. This study aimed to develop and validate a Colposcopic Artificial Intelligence Auxiliary Diagnostic System (CAIADS) for grading colposcopic impressions and guiding biopsies.MethodsAnonymized digital records of 19,435 patients were obtained from six hospitals across China. These records included colposcopic images, clinical information, and pathological results (gold standard). The data were randomly assigned (7:1:2) to a training and a tuning set for developing CAIADS and to a validation set for evaluating performance.ResultsThe agreement between CAIADS-graded colposcopic impressions and pathology findings was higher than that of colposcopies interpreted by colposcopists (82.2% versus 65.9%, kappa 0.750 versus 0.516, p < 0.001). For detecting pathological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+), CAIADS showed higher sensitivity than the use of colposcopies interpreted by colposcopists at either biopsy threshold (low-grade or worse 90.5%, 95% CI 88.9-91.4% versus 83.5%, 81.5-85.3%; high-grade or worse 71.9%, 69.5-74.2% versus 60.4%, 57.9-62.9%; all p < 0.001), whereas the specificities were similar (low-grade or worse 51.8%, 49.8-53.8% versus 52.0%, 50.0-54.1%; high-grade or worse 93.9%, 92.9-94.9% versus 94.9%, 93.9-95.7%; all p > 0.05). The CAIADS also demonstrated a superior ability in predicting biopsy sites, with a median mean-intersection-over-union (mIoU) of 0.758.ConclusionsThe CAIADS has potential in assisting beginners and for improving the diagnostic quality of colposcopy and biopsy in the detection of cervical precancer/cancer.
| S-EPMC7754595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsCoronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment has proven clinical utility, but Doppler-based methods are sensitive to noise and operator bias, limiting their clinical applicability. The objective of the study is to expand the adoption of invasive Doppler CFR, through the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to automatically quantify coronary Doppler quality and track flow velocity.Methods and resultsA neural network was trained on images extracted from coronary Doppler flow recordings to score signal quality and derive values for coronary flow velocity and CFR. The outputs were independently validated against expert consensus. Artificial intelligence successfully quantified Doppler signal quality, with high agreement with expert consensus (Spearman's rho: 0.94), and within individual experts. Artificial intelligence automatically tracked flow velocity with superior numerical agreement against experts, when compared with the current console algorithm [AI flow vs. expert flow bias -1.68 cm/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.13 to -1.23 cm/s, P < 0.001 with limits of agreement (LOA) -4.03 to 0.68 cm/s; console flow vs. expert flow bias -2.63 cm/s, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.52, P < 0.001, 95% LOA -8.45 to -3.19 cm/s]. Artificial intelligence yielded more precise CFR values [median absolute difference (MAD) against expert CFR: 4.0% for AI and 7.4% for console]. Artificial intelligence tracked lower-quality Doppler signals with lower variability (MAD against expert CFR 8.3% for AI and 16.7% for console).ConclusionAn AI-based system, trained by experts and independently validated, could assign a quality score to Doppler traces and derive coronary flow velocity and CFR. By making Doppler CFR more automated, precise, and operator-independent, AI could expand the clinical applicability of coronary microvascular assessment.
| S-EPMC10393887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI), the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, is being increasingly leveraged to facilitate clinical decision-making. AI-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools can improve the quality of care and appropriate use of healthcare resources, and decrease healthcare provider burnout. Understanding the determinants of implementing AI-based CDS tools in healthcare delivery is vital to reap the benefits of these tools. The objective of this scoping review is to map and synthesise determinants (barriers and facilitators) to implementing AI-based CDS tools in healthcare.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The search terms will be tailored to each database, which includes MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature and references of included studies will also be searched. The search will include studies published from database inception until 10 May 2022. We will not limit searches by study design or language. Studies that either report determinants or describe the implementation of AI-based CDS tools in clinical practice or/and healthcare settings will be included. The identified determinants (barriers and facilitators) will be described by synthesising the themes using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The outcome variables measured will be mapped and the measures of effectiveness will be summarised using descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required because all data for this study have been previously published. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic conferences. Importantly, the findings of this scoping review will be widely presented to decision-makers, health system administrators, healthcare providers, and patients and family/caregivers as part of an implementation study of an AI-based CDS for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
| S-EPMC9950925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nearly one-quarter of all cancer deaths worldwide are due to lung cancer, making this disease the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. The most important determinant of survival in lung cancer is the disease stage at diagnosis, thus developing an effective screening method for early diagnosis has been a long-term goal in lung cancer care. In the last decade, and based on the results of large clinical trials, lung cancer screening programs using low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) in high-risk individuals have been implemented in some clinical settings, however, this method has various limitations, especially a high false-positive rate which eventually results in a number of unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions among the screened subjects. By using complex algorithms and software, artificial intelligence (AI) is capable to emulate human cognition in the analysis, interpretation, and comprehension of complicated data and currently, it is being successfully applied in various healthcare settings. Taking advantage of the ability of AI to quantify information from images, and its superior capability in recognizing complex patterns in images compared to humans, AI has the potential to aid clinicians in the interpretation of LDCT images obtained in the setting of lung cancer screening. In the last decade, several AI models aimed to improve lung cancer detection have been reported. Some algorithms performed equal or even outperformed experienced radiologists in distinguishing benign from malign lung nodules and some of those models improved diagnostic accuracy and decreased the false-positive rate. Here, we discuss recent publications in which AI algorithms are utilized to assess chest computer tomography (CT) scans imaging obtaining in the setting of lung cancer screening.
| S-EPMC7760157 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8521861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) represents a rapidly developing field. Its use can improve diagnosis and therapy in many areas of medicine. Despite this enormous progress, many physicians perceive it as a black box and are skeptical about it. This review will present the basics of machine learning. Different classifications of artificial intelligence, such as supervised versus unsupervised and discriminative versus generative AI, are given. Analogies to human intelligence are discussed as far as algorithms are oriented toward it. In the second step, the most common models like random forest, k-means clustering, convolutional neural network, and transformers will be presented in a way that the underlying idea can be understood. Corresponding medical applications in cardiovascular medicine will be named for all models, respectively. The overview is intended to show that the term artificial intelligence covers a wide range of different concepts. It should help physicians understand the principles of AI to make up one's minds about its application in cardiology. It should also enable them to evaluate results obtained with AI's help critically.
| S-EPMC10766001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAccurate assessment of wound area and percentage of granulation tissue (PGT) are important for optimizing wound care and healing outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based wound assessment tools have the potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of wound area and PGT measurement, while improving efficiency of wound care workflows.ObjectiveTo develop a quantitative and qualitative method to evaluate AI-based wound assessment tools compared with expert human assessments.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study was performed across 2 independent wound centers using deidentified wound photographs collected for routine care (site 1, 110 photographs taken between May 1 and 31, 2018; site 2, 89 photographs taken between January 1 and December 31, 2019). Digital wound photographs of patients were selected chronologically from the electronic medical records from the general population of patients visiting the wound centers. For inclusion in the study, the complete wound edge and a ruler were required to be visible; circumferential ulcers were specifically excluded. Four wound specialists (2 per site) and an AI-based wound assessment service independently traced wound area and granulation tissue.Main outcomes and measuresThe quantitative performance of AI tracings was evaluated by statistically comparing error measure distributions between test AI traces and reference human traces (AI vs human) with error distributions between independent traces by 2 humans (human vs human). Quantitative outcomes included statistically significant differences in error measures of false-negative area (FNA), false-positive area (FPA), and absolute relative error (ARE) between AI vs human and human vs human comparisons of wound area and granulation tissue tracings. Six masked attending physician reviewers (3 per site) viewed randomized area tracings for AI and human annotators and qualitatively assessed them. Qualitative outcomes included statistically significant difference in the absolute difference between AI-based PGT measurements and mean reviewer visual PGT estimates compared with PGT estimate variability measures (ie, range, standard deviation) across reviewers.ResultsA total of 199 photographs were selected for the study across both sites; mean (SD) patient age was 64 (18) years (range, 17-95 years) and 127 (63.8%) were women. The comparisons of AI vs human with human vs human for FPA and ARE were not statistically significant. AI vs human FNA was slightly elevated compared with human vs human FNA (median [IQR], 7.7% [2.7%-21.2%] vs 5.7% [1.6%-14.9%]; P < .001), indicating that AI traces tended to slightly underestimate the human reference wound boundaries compared with human test traces. Two of 6 reviewers had a statistically higher frequency in agreement that human tracings met the standard area definition, but overall agreement was moderate (352 yes responses of 583 total responses [60.4%] for AI and 793 yes responses of 1166 total responses [68.0%] for human tracings). AI PGT measurements fell in the typical range of variation in interreviewer visual PGT estimates; however, visual PGT estimates varied considerably (mean range, 34.8%; mean SD, 19.6%).Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides a framework for evaluating AI-based digital wound assessment tools that can be extended to automated measurements of other wound features or adapted to evaluate other AI-based digital image diagnostic tools. As AI-based wound assessment tools become more common across wound care settings, it will be important to rigorously validate their performance in helping clinicians obtain accurate wound assessments to guide clinical care.
| S-EPMC8134996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a diagnostic and decision-support tool is increasing in dermatology. The accuracy of image-based AI tools is incumbent on images in training sets, which requires patient consent for sharing. This study aims to understand individuals' willingness to share their images for AI and variables that influence willingness.MethodsIn an online survey administered via Amazon Mechanical Turk, sketches of the hand, face, and genitalia assigned to two use cases employing AI (research vs. personal medical care) were shown. Participants rated willingness to share the image on a 7-point Likert scale.ResultsOf the 1010 participants, individuals were most willing to share images of their hands (81.2%), face (70.3%), and lastly genitals (male: 56.8%, female: 46.7%). Individuals were more willing to share for personal care versus research (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.69-0.86]). Willingness to share was higher among males, participants with higher education, tech-savvy participants, and frequent social media users. Most participants were willing to share images if offered monetary compensation, with face images requiring the highest payment (mean $18.25, SD 20.05). Only 38.7% of individuals refused image sharing regardless of any monetary compensation, with the majority of this group unwilling to share images of the genitals.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates overall public support for sharing images to AI-based tools in dermatology, with influencing factors including image type, context, education level, technology comfort, social media use, and monetary compensation.
| S-EPMC10613161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) have partnered to initiate the Pediatrics Milestone Project to further refine the 6 ACGME competencies and to set performance standards as part of the continued commitment to document outcomes of training and program effectiveness. INTERVENTION: Members of the Pediatrics Milestone Project Working Group searched the medical literature and beyond to create a synopsis of models and evidence for a developmental ontogeny of the elements for 52 subcompetencies. For each subcompetency, we created a series of Milestones, grounded in the literature. The milestones were vetted with the entire working group, engaging in an iterative process of revisions until reaching consensus that their narrative descriptions (1) included all critical elements, (2) were behaviorally based, (3) were properly sequenced, and (4) represented the educational continuum of training and practice. OUTCOMES: We have completed the first iteration of milestones for all subcompetencies. For each milestone, a synopsis of relevant literature provides background, references, and a conceptual framework. These milestones provide narrative descriptions of behaviors that represent the ontogeny of knowledge, skill, and attitude development across the educational continuum of training and practice. DISCUSSION: The pediatrics milestones take us a step closer to meaningful outcome assessment. Next steps include undertaking rigorous study, making appropriate modifications, and setting performance standards. Our aim is to assist program directors in making more reliable and valid judgments as to whether a resident is a "good doctor" and to provide outcome evidence regarding the program's success in developing doctors.
| S-EPMC2951782 | biostudies-other
Project description:Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and "100 years from now." (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.
| S-EPMC10635466 | biostudies-literature