Project description:BackgroundDespite the emerging application of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in pregnancy care and the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) over the last decade, it remains understudied regarding the role of AI in CDSS specialized for pregnancy care.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize AI-augmented CDSS in pregnancy care, CDSS functionality, AI methodologies, and clinical implementation, we reported a systematic review based on empirical studies that examined AI-augmented CDSS in pregnancy care.MethodsWe retrieved studies that examined AI-augmented CDSS in pregnancy care using database queries involved with titles, abstracts, keywords, and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. Bibliographic records from their inception to 2022 were retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE (n=206), Embase (n=101), and ACM Digital Library (n=377), followed by eligibility screening and literature review. The eligibility criteria include empirical studies that (1) developed or tested AI methods, (2) developed or tested CDSS or CDSS components, and (3) focused on pregnancy care. Data of studies used for review and appraisal include title, abstract, keywords, MeSH terms, full text, and supplements. Publications with ancillary information or overlapping outcomes were synthesized as one single study. Reviewers independently reviewed and assessed the quality of selected studies.ResultsWe identified 30 distinct studies of 684 studies from their inception to 2022. Topics of clinical applications covered AI-augmented CDSS from prenatal, early pregnancy, obstetric care, and postpartum care. Topics of CDSS functions include diagnostic support, clinical prediction, therapeutics recommendation, and knowledge base.ConclusionsOur review acknowledged recent advances in CDSS studies including early diagnosis of prenatal abnormalities, cost-effective surveillance, prenatal ultrasound support, and ontology development. To recommend future directions, we also noted key gaps from existing studies, including (1) decision support in current childbirth deliveries without using observational data from consequential fetal or maternal outcomes in future pregnancies; (2) scarcity of studies in identifying several high-profile biases from CDSS, including social determinants of health highlighted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and (3) chasm between internally validated CDSS models, external validity, and clinical implementation.

Project description:RationaleClinical decision support (CDS) tools leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) have been an approach for addressing challenges in asthma care but remain under-studied through clinical trials.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and efficiency of Asthma-Guidance and Prediction System (A-GPS), an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted CDS tool, in optimizing asthma management through a randomized clinical trial (RCT).MethodsThis was a single-center pragmatic RCT with a stratified randomization design conducted for one year in the primary care pediatric practice of the Mayo Clinic, MN. Children (<18 years) diagnosed with asthma receiving care at the study site were enrolled along with their 42 primary care providers. Study subjects were stratified into three strata (based on asthma severity, asthma care status, and asthma diagnosis) and were blinded to the assigned groups.MeasurementsIntervention was a quarterly A-GPS report to clinicians including relevant clinical information for asthma management from EHRs and machine learning-based prediction for risk of asthma exacerbation (AE). Primary endpoint was the occurrence of AE within 1 year and secondary outcomes included time required for clinicians to review EHRs for asthma management.Main resultsOut of 555 participants invited to the study, 184 consented for the study and were randomized (90 in intervention and 94 in control group). Median age of 184 participants was 8.5 years. While the proportion of children with AE in both groups decreased from the baseline (P = 0.042), there was no difference in AE frequency between the two groups (12% for the intervention group vs. 15% for the control group, Odds Ratio: 0.82; 95%CI 0.374-1.96; P = 0.626) during the study period. For the secondary end points, A-GPS intervention, however, significantly reduced time for reviewing EHRs for asthma management of each participant (median: 3.5 min, IQR: 2-5), compared to usual care without A-GPS (median: 11.3 min, IQR: 6.3-15); p<0.001). Mean health care costs with 95%CI of children during the trial (compared to before the trial) in the intervention group were lower than those in the control group (-$1,036 [-$2177, $44] for the intervention group vs. +$80 [-$841, $1000] for the control group), though there was no significant difference (p = 0.12). Among those who experienced the first AE during the study period (n = 25), those in the intervention group had timelier follow up by the clinical care team compared to those in the control group but no significant difference was found (HR = 1.93; 95% CI: 0.82-1.45, P = 0.10). There was no difference in the proportion of duration when patients had well-controlled asthma during the study period between the intervention and the control groups.ConclusionsWhile A-GPS-based intervention showed similar reduction in AE events to usual care, it might reduce clinicians' burden for EHRs review resulting in efficient asthma management. A larger RCT is needed for further studying the findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02865967.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various healthcare domains, where AI algorithms sometimes even outperform human specialists. However, the field of clinical ethics has remained largely untouched by AI advances. This study explores the attitudes of anesthesiologists and internists towards the use of AI-driven preference prediction tools to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients.MethodsA questionnaire was developed and pretested among medical students. The questionnaire was distributed to 200 German anesthesiologists and 200 German internists, thereby focusing on physicians who often encounter patients lacking decision-making capacity. The questionnaire covered attitudes toward AI-driven preference prediction, availability and utilization of Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and experiences with ethically challenging situations. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis was performed. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis in a mixed inductive-deductive approach.ResultsParticipants were predominantly male (69.3%), with ages ranging from 27 to 77. Most worked in nonacademic hospitals (82%). Physicians generally showed hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction, citing concerns about the loss of individuality and humanity, lack of explicability in AI results, and doubts about AI's ability to encompass the ethical deliberation process. In contrast, physicians had a more positive opinion of CESS. Availability of CESS varied, with 81.8% of participants reporting access. Among those without access, 91.8% expressed a desire for CESS. Physicians' reluctance toward AI-driven preference prediction aligns with concerns about transparency, individuality, and human-machine interaction. While AI could enhance the accuracy of predictions and reduce surrogate burden, concerns about potential biases, de-humanisation, and lack of explicability persist.ConclusionsGerman physicians frequently encountering incapacitated patients exhibit hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction but hold a higher esteem for CESS. Addressing concerns about individuality, explicability, and human-machine roles may facilitate the acceptance of AI in clinical ethics. Further research into patient and surrogate perspectives is needed to ensure AI aligns with patient preferences and values in complex medical decisions.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in various fields of medicine. It has the potential to facilitate shared decision making (SDM). However, there is no comprehensive mapping of how AI may be used for SDM.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI to facilitate SDM.MethodsWe performed a scoping review informed by the methodological framework proposed by Levac et al, modifications to the original Arksey and O'Malley framework of a scoping review, and the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. We reported our results based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guideline. At the identification stage, an information specialist performed a comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases from their inception to May 2021. The inclusion criteria were: all populations; all AI interventions that were used to facilitate SDM, and if the AI intervention was not used for the decision-making point in SDM, it was excluded; any outcome related to patients, health care providers, or health care systems; studies in any health care setting, only studies published in the English language, and all study types. Overall, 2 reviewers independently performed the study selection process and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. A descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsThe search process yielded 1445 records. After removing duplicates, 894 documents were screened, and 6 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 2 of them were conducted in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Asia. Most articles were published after 2017. Overall, 3 articles focused on primary care, and 3 articles focused on secondary care. All studies used machine learning methods. Moreover, 3 articles included health care providers in the validation stage of the AI intervention, and 1 article included both health care providers and patients in clinical validation, but none of the articles included health care providers or patients in the design and development of the AI intervention. All used AI to support SDM by providing clinical recommendations or predictions.ConclusionsEvidence of the use of AI in SDM is in its infancy. We found AI supporting SDM in similar ways across the included articles. We observed a lack of emphasis on patients' values and preferences, as well as poor reporting of AI interventions, resulting in a lack of clarity about different aspects. Little effort was made to address the topics of explainability of AI interventions and to include end-users in the design and development of the interventions. Further efforts are required to strengthen and standardize the use of AI in different steps of SDM and to evaluate its impact on various decisions, populations, and settings.

Project description:BackgroundClinical decision support systems are designed to utilize medical data, knowledge, and analysis engines and to generate patient-specific assessments or recommendations to health professionals in order to assist decision making. Artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support systems aid the decision-making process through an intelligent component. Well-defined evaluation methods are essential to ensure the seamless integration and contribution of these systems to clinical practice.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop and validate a measurement instrument and test the interrelationships of evaluation variables for an artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support system evaluation framework.MethodsAn artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support system evaluation framework consisting of 6 variables was developed. A Delphi process was conducted to develop the measurement instrument items. Cognitive interviews and pretesting were performed to refine the questions. Web-based survey response data were analyzed to remove irrelevant questions from the measurement instrument, to test dimensional structure, and to assess reliability and validity. The interrelationships of relevant variables were tested and verified using path analysis, and a 28-item measurement instrument was developed. Measurement instrument survey responses were collected from 156 respondents.ResultsThe Cronbach α of the measurement instrument was 0.963, and its content validity was 0.943. Values of average variance extracted ranged from 0.582 to 0.756, and values of the heterotrait-monotrait ratio ranged from 0.376 to 0.896. The final model had a good fit (χ262=36.984; P=.08; comparative fit index 0.991; goodness-of-fit index 0.957; root mean square error of approximation 0.052; standardized root mean square residual 0.028). Variables in the final model accounted for 89% of the variance in the user acceptance dimension.ConclusionsUser acceptance is the central dimension of artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support system success. Acceptance was directly influenced by perceived ease of use, information quality, service quality, and perceived benefit. Acceptance was also indirectly influenced by system quality and information quality through perceived ease of use. User acceptance and perceived benefit were interrelated.

Dataset Information

Artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making processes.

Publications

Artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making processes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets