Dataset Information

Evaluating the Clinical Feasibility of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered, Web-Based Clinical Decision Support System for the Treatment of Depression in Adults: Longitudinal Feasibility Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approximately two-thirds of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission during their first treatment. There has been increasing interest in the use of digital, artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to assist physicians in their treatment selection and management, improving the personalization and use of best practices such as measurement-based care. Previous literature shows that for digital mental health tools to be successful, the tool must be easy for patients and physicians to use and feasible within existing clinical workflows.

Objective

This study aims to examine the feasibility of an artificial intelligence-powered CDSS, which combines the operationalized 2016 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments guidelines with a neural network-based individualized treatment remission prediction.

Methods

Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was adapted to be completed entirely remotely. A total of 7 physicians recruited outpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria. Patients completed a minimum of one visit without the CDSS (baseline) and 2 subsequent visits where the CDSS was used by the physician (visits 1 and 2). The primary outcome of interest was change in appointment length after the introduction of the CDSS as a proxy for feasibility. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires and semistructured interviews.

Results

Data were collected between January and November 2020. A total of 17 patients were enrolled in the study; of the 17 patients, 14 (82%) completed the study. There was no significant difference in appointment length between visits (introduction of the tool did not increase appointment length; F_2,24=0.805; mean squared error 58.08; P=.46). In total, 92% (12/13) of patients and 71% (5/7) of physicians felt that the tool was easy to use; 62% (8/13) of patients and 71% (5/7) of physicians rated that they trusted the CDSS. Of the 13 patients, 6 (46%) felt that the patient-clinician relationship significantly or somewhat improved, whereas 7 (54%) felt that it did not change.

Conclusions

Our findings confirm that the integration of the tool does not significantly increase appointment length and suggest that the CDSS is easy to use and may have positive effects on the patient-physician relationship for some patients. The CDSS is feasible and ready for effectiveness studies.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04061642; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04061642.

SUBMITTER: Popescu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8576598 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:State-of-the-art machine learning (ML) artificial intelligence methods are increasingly leveraged in clinical predictive modeling to provide clinical decision support systems to physicians. Modern ML approaches such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and tree boosting often perform better than more traditional methods like logistic regression. On the other hand, these modern methods yield a limited understanding of the resulting predictions. However, in the medical domain, understanding of applied models is essential, in particular, when informing clinical decision support. Thus, in recent years, interpretability methods for modern ML methods have emerged to potentially allow explainable predictions paired with high performance. To our knowledge, we present in this work the first explainability comparison of two modern ML methods, tree boosting and multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), to traditional logistic regression methods using a stroke outcome prediction paradigm. Here, we used clinical features to predict a dichotomized 90 days post-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. For interpretability, we evaluated clinical features' importance with regard to predictions using deep Taylor decomposition for MLP, Shapley values for tree boosting and model coefficients for logistic regression. With regard to performance as measured by Area under the Curve (AUC) values on the test dataset, all models performed comparably: Logistic regression AUCs were 0.83, 0.83, 0.81 for three different regularization schemes; tree boosting AUC was 0.81; MLP AUC was 0.83. Importantly, the interpretability analysis demonstrated consistent results across models by rating age and stroke severity consecutively amongst the most important predictive features. For less important features, some differences were observed between the methods. Our analysis suggests that modern machine learning methods can provide explainability which is compatible with domain knowledge interpretation and traditional method rankings. Future work should focus on replication of these findings in other datasets and further testing of different explainability methods.