Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been extensively used in a range of medical fields to promote therapeutic development. The development of diverse AI techniques has also contributed to early detections, disease diagnoses, and referral management. However, concerns about the value of advanced AI in disease diagnosis have been raised by health care professionals, medical service providers, and health policy decision makers.

Objective

This review aimed to systematically examine the literature, in particular, focusing on the performance comparison between advanced AI and human clinicians to provide an up-to-date summary regarding the extent of the application of AI to disease diagnoses. By doing so, this review discussed the relationship between the current advanced AI development and clinicians with respect to disease diagnosis and thus therapeutic development in the long run.

Methods

We systematically searched articles published between January 2000 and March 2019 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis in the following databases: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. According to the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria, only articles comparing the medical performance between advanced AI and human experts were considered.

Results

A total of 9 articles were identified. A convolutional neural network was the commonly applied advanced AI technology. Owing to the variation in medical fields, there is a distinction between individual studies in terms of classification, labeling, training process, dataset size, and algorithm validation of AI. Performance indices reported in articles included diagnostic accuracy, weighted errors, false-positive rate, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results showed that the performance of AI was at par with that of clinicians and exceeded that of clinicians with less experience.

Conclusions

Current AI development has a diagnostic performance that is comparable with medical experts, especially in image recognition-related fields. Further studies can be extended to other types of medical imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and other medical practices unrelated to images. With the continued development of AI-assisted technologies, the clinical implications underpinned by clinicians' experience and guided by patient-centered health care principle should be constantly considered in future AI-related and other technology-based medical research.

SUBMITTER: Shen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6716335 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Artificial Intelligence Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review.

Shen Jiayi J Zhang Casper J P CJP Jiang Bangsheng B Chen Jiebin J Song Jian J Liu Zherui Z He Zonglin Z Wong Sum Yi SY Fang Po-Han PH Ming Wai-Kit WK

JMIR medical informatics 20190816 3

<h4>Background</h4>Artificial intelligence (AI) has been extensively used in a range of medical fields to promote therapeutic development. The development of diverse AI techniques has also contributed to early detections, disease diagnoses, and referral management. However, concerns about the value of advanced AI in disease diagnosis have been raised by health care professionals, medical service providers, and health policy decision makers.<h4>Objective</h4>This review aimed to systematically ex ...[more]

PMID: 31420959

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically examine the design, reporting standards, risk of bias, and claims of studies comparing the performance of diagnostic deep learning algorithms for medical imaging with that of expert clinicians.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization trial registry from 2010 to June 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised trial registrations and non-randomised studies comparing the performance of a deep learning algorithm in medical imaging with a contemporary group of one or more expert clinicians. Medical imaging has seen a growing interest in deep learning research. The main distinguishing feature of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in deep learning is that when CNNs are fed with raw data, they develop their own representations needed for pattern recognition. The algorithm learns for itself the features of an image that are important for classification rather than being told by humans which features to use. The selected studies aimed to use medical imaging for predicting absolute risk of existing disease or classification into diagnostic groups (eg, disease or non-disease). For example, raw chest radiographs tagged with a label such as pneumothorax or no pneumothorax and the CNN learning which pixel patterns suggest pneumothorax.Review methodsAdherence to reporting standards was assessed by using CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for randomised studies and TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) for non-randomised studies. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised studies and PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) for non-randomised studies.ResultsOnly 10 records were found for deep learning randomised clinical trials, two of which have been published (with low risk of bias, except for lack of blinding, and high adherence to reporting standards) and eight are ongoing. Of 81 non-randomised clinical trials identified, only nine were prospective and just six were tested in a real world clinical setting. The median number of experts in the comparator group was only four (interquartile range 2-9). Full access to all datasets and code was severely limited (unavailable in 95% and 93% of studies, respectively). The overall risk of bias was high in 58 of 81 studies and adherence to reporting standards was suboptimal (<50% adherence for 12 of 29 TRIPOD items). 61 of 81 studies stated in their abstract that performance of artificial intelligence was at least comparable to (or better than) that of clinicians. Only 31 of 81 studies (38%) stated that further prospective studies or trials were required.ConclusionsFew prospective deep learning studies and randomised trials exist in medical imaging. Most non-randomised trials are not prospective, are at high risk of bias, and deviate from existing reporting standards. Data and code availability are lacking in most studies, and human comparator groups are often small. Future studies should diminish risk of bias, enhance real world clinical relevance, improve reporting and transparency, and appropriately temper conclusions.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42019123605.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to diagnose temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, studies have used different patient selection criteria, disease subtypes, input data, and outcome measures. Resultantly, the performance of the AI models varies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically summarize the current literature on the application of AI technologies for diagnosis of different TMD subtypes, evaluate the quality of these studies, and assess the diagnostic accuracy of existing AI models.Materials and methodsThe study protocol was carried out based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to find relevant articles from database inception to June 2022. Studies that used AI algorithms to diagnose at least one subtype of TMD and those that assessed the performance of AI algorithms were included. We excluded studies on orofacial pain that were not directly related to the TMD, such as studies on atypical facial pain and neuropathic pain, editorials, book chapters, and excerpts without detailed empirical data. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to provide certainty of evidence.ResultsA total of 17 articles for automated diagnosis of masticatory muscle disorders, TMJ osteoarthrosis, internal derangement, and disc perforation were included; they were retrospective studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and a pilot study. Seven studies were subjected to a meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. According to the GRADE, the certainty of evidence was very low. The performance of the AI models had accuracy and specificity ranging from 84% to 99.9% and 73% to 100%, respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.91 (95% CI 0.76-0.99), I2 = 97% (95% CI 0.96-0.98), p < 0.001.ConclusionsVarious AI algorithms developed for diagnosing TMDs may provide additional clinical expertise to increase diagnostic accuracy. However, it should be noted that a high risk of bias was present in the included studies. Also, certainty of evidence was very low. Future research of higher quality is strongly recommended.

Project description:IntroductionThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in ophthalmology is rapidly expanding. Early detection and management of keratoconus is important for preventing disease progression and the need for corneal transplant. We review studies regarding the utility of AI in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus and other corneal ectasias.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for relevant original, English-language research studies in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to October 31, 2023, using a combination of the following keywords: artificial intelligence, deep learning, machine learning, keratoconus, and corneal ectasia. Case reports, literature reviews, conference proceedings, and editorials were excluded. We extracted the following data from each eligible study: type of AI, input used for training, output, ground truth or reference, dataset size, availability of algorithm/model, availability of dataset, and major study findings.ResultsNinety-three original research studies were included in this review, with the date of publication ranging from 1994 to 2023. The majority of studies were regarding the use of AI in detecting keratoconus or subclinical keratoconus (n=61). Among studies regarding keratoconus diagnosis, the most common inputs were corneal topography, Scheimpflug-based corneal tomography, and anterior segment-optical coherence tomography. This review also summarized 16 original research studies regarding AI-based assessment of severity and clinical features, 7 studies regarding the prediction of disease progression, and 6 studies regarding the characterization of treatment response. There were only three studies regarding the use of AI in identifying susceptibility genes involved in the etiology and pathogenesis of keratoconus.DiscussionAlgorithms trained on Scheimpflug-based tomography seem promising tools for the early diagnosis of keratoconus that can be particularly applied in low-resource communities. Future studies could investigate the application of AI models trained on multimodal patient information for staging keratoconus severity and tracking disease progression.

Project description:Background: Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected more than 200 countries and lead to enormous losses. This study systematically reviews the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques in COVID-19, especially for diagnosis, estimation of epidemic trends, prognosis, and exploration of effective and safe drugs and vaccines; and discusses the potential limitations. Methods: We report this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to 19 September 2020 for published studies of AI applications in COVID-19. We used PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) to assess the quality of literature related to the diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19. We registered the protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020211555). Results: We included 78 studies: 46 articles discussed AI-assisted diagnosis for COVID-19 with total accuracy of 70.00 to 99.92%, sensitivity of 73.00 to 100.00%, specificity of 25 to 100.00%, and area under the curve of 0.732 to 1.000. Fourteen articles evaluated prognosis based on clinical characteristics at hospital admission, such as clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics, reaching accuracy of 74.4 to 95.20%, sensitivity of 72.8 to 98.00%, specificity of 55 to 96.87% and AUC of 0.66 to 0.997 in predicting critical COVID-19. Nine articles used AI models to predict the epidemic of the COVID-19, such as epidemic peak, infection rate, number of infected cases, transmission laws, and development trend. Eight articles used AI to explore potential effective drugs, primarily through drug repurposing and drug development. Finally, 1 article predicted vaccine targets that have the potential to develop COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: In this review, we have shown that AI achieved high performance in diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, epidemic prediction and drug discovery for COVID-19. AI has the potential to enhance significantly existing medical and healthcare system efficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dataset Information

Artificial Intelligence Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Artificial Intelligence Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets