Dataset Information

Protocol for development of a reporting guideline (TRIPOD-AI) and risk of bias tool (PROBAST-AI) for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies based on artificial intelligence.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model of Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) were both published to improve the reporting and critical appraisal of prediction model studies for diagnosis and prognosis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop an extension to the TRIPOD statement (TRIPOD-artificial intelligence, AI) and the PROBAST (PROBAST-AI) tool for prediction model studies that applied machine learning techniques.

Methods and analysis

TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI will be developed following published guidance from the EQUATOR Network, and will comprise five stages. Stage 1 will comprise two systematic reviews (across all medical fields and specifically in oncology) to examine the quality of reporting in published machine-learning-based prediction model studies. In stage 2, we will consult a diverse group of key stakeholders using a Delphi process to identify items to be considered for inclusion in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 3 will be virtual consensus meetings to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 4 will involve developing the TRIPOD-AI checklist and the PROBAST-AI tool, and writing the accompanying explanation and elaboration papers. In the final stage, stage 5, we will disseminate TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI via journals, conferences, blogs, websites (including TRIPOD, PROBAST and EQUATOR Network) and social media. TRIPOD-AI will provide researchers working on prediction model studies based on machine learning with a reporting guideline that can help them report key details that readers need to evaluate the study quality and interpret its findings, potentially reducing research waste. We anticipate PROBAST-AI will help researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers and policymakers critically appraise the design, conduct and analysis of machine learning based prediction model studies, with a robust standardised tool for bias evaluation.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted by the Central University Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford on 10-December-2020 (R73034/RE001). Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-review publications.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019140361 and CRD42019161764.

SUBMITTER: Collins GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273461 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionStandards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (STARD) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting in studies investigating diagnostic test accuracy. However, its current form, STARD 2015 does not address the issues and challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI)-centred interventions. As such, we propose an AI-specific version of the STARD checklist (STARD-AI), which focuses on the reporting of AI diagnostic test accuracy studies. This paper describes the methods that will be used to develop STARD-AI.Methods and analysisThe development of the STARD-AI checklist can be distilled into six stages. (1) A project organisation phase has been undertaken, during which a Project Team and a Steering Committee were established; (2) An item generation process has been completed following a literature review, a patient and public involvement and engagement exercise and an online scoping survey of international experts; (3) A three-round modified Delphi consensus methodology is underway, which will culminate in a teleconference consensus meeting of experts; (4) Thereafter, the Project Team will draft the initial STARD-AI checklist and the accompanying documents; (5) A piloting phase among expert users will be undertaken to identify items which are either unclear or missing. This process, consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews, will contribute towards the explanation and elaboration document and (6) On finalisation of the manuscripts, the group's efforts turn towards an organised dissemination and implementation strategy to maximise end-user adoption.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Joint Research Compliance Office at Imperial College London (reference number: 19IC5679). A dissemination strategy will be aimed towards five groups of stakeholders: (1) academia, (2) policy, (3) guidelines and regulation, (4) industry and (5) public and non-specific stakeholders. We anticipate that dissemination will take place in Q3 of 2021.

Project description:The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Project description:The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundBronchoscopy is a key step in the diagnosis and treatment of respiratory diseases. However, the level of expertise varies among different bronchoscopists. Artificial intelligence (AI) may help them identify bronchial lumens. Thus, a bronchoscopy quality-control system based on AI was built to improve the performance of bronchoscopists.MethodsThis single-center observational study consecutively collected bronchoscopy videos from Shanghai Chest Hospital and segmented each video into 31 different anatomical locations to develop an AI-assisted system based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) model. We then designed a single-center trial to compare the accuracy of lumen recognition by bronchoscopists with and without the assistance of the AI system.ResultsA total of 28,441 qualified images of bronchial lumen were used to train the CNNs. In the cross-validation set, the optimal accuracy of the six models was between 91.83% and 96.62%. In the test set, the visual geometry group 16 (VGG-16) achieved optimal performance with an accuracy of 91.88%, and an area under the curve of 0.995. In the clinical evaluation, the accuracy rate of the AI system alone was 54.30% (202/372). For the identification of bronchi except for segmental bronchi, the accuracy was 82.69% (129/156). In group 1, the recognition accuracy rates of doctors A, B, a and b alone were 42.47%, 34.68%, 28.76%, and 29.57%, respectively, but increased to 57.53%, 54.57%, 54.57%, and 46.24% respectively when combined with the AI system. Similarly, in group 2, the recognition accuracy rates of doctors C, D, c, and d were 37.90%, 41.40%, 30.91%, and 33.60% respectively, but increased to 51.61%, 47.85%, 53.49%, and 54.30% respectively, when combined with the AI system. Except for doctor D, the accuracy of doctors in recognizing lumen was significantly higher with AI assistance than without AI assistance, regardless of their experience (P<0.001).ConclusionsOur AI system could better recognize bronchial lumen and reduce differences in the operation levels of different bronchoscopists. It could be used to improve the quality of everyday bronchoscopies.

Project description:Purpose:Next-generation sequencing technologies are actively applied in clinical oncology. Bioinformatics pipeline analysis is an integral part of this process; however, humans cannot yet realize the full potential of the highly complex pipeline output. As a result, the decision to include a variant in the final report during routine clinical sign-out remains challenging. Methods:We used an artificial intelligence approach to capture the collective clinical sign-out experience of six board-certified molecular pathologists to build and validate a decision support tool for variant reporting. We extracted all reviewed and reported variants from our clinical database and tested several machine learning models. We used 10-fold cross-validation for our variant call prediction model, which derives a contiguous prediction score from 0 to 1 (no to yes) for clinical reporting. Results:For each of the 19,594 initial training variants, our pipeline generates approximately 500 features, which results in a matrix of > 9 million data points. From a comparison of naive Bayes, decision trees, random forests, and logistic regression models, we selected models that allow human interpretability of the prediction score. The logistic regression model demonstrated 1% false negativity and 2% false positivity. The final models' Youden indices were 0.87 and 0.77 for screening and confirmatory cutoffs, respectively. Retraining on a new assay and performance assessment in 16,123 independent variants validated our approach (Youden index, 0.93). We also derived individual pathologist-centric models (virtual consensus conference function), and a visual drill-down functionality allows assessment of how underlying features contributed to a particular score or decision branch for clinical implementation. Conclusion:Our decision support tool for variant reporting is a practically relevant artificial intelligence approach to harness the next-generation sequencing bioinformatics pipeline output when the complexity of data interpretation exceeds human capabilities.