Clinical artificial intelligence quality improvement: towards continual monitoring and updating of AI algorithms in healthcare.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Feng J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9156743 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical artificial intelligence quality improvement: towards continual monitoring and updating of AI algorithms in healthcare.
Feng Jean J Phillips Rachael V RV Malenica Ivana I Bishara Andrew A Hubbard Alan E AE Celi Leo A LA Pirracchio Romain R
NPJ digital medicine 20220531 1
Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to derive insights from clinical data and improve patient outcomes. However, these highly complex systems are sensitive to changes in the environment and liable to performance decay. Even after their successful integration into clinical practice, ML/AI algorithms should be continuously monitored and updated to ensure their long-term safety and effectiveness. To bring AI into maturity in clinical care, we advocat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy. Yet people are often reluctant to trust automated systems, and some patient populations may be particularly distrusting. We sought to determine how diverse patient populations feel about the use of AI diagnostic tools, and whether framing and informing the choice affects uptake. To construct and pretest our materials, we conducted structured interviews with a diverse set of actual patients. We then conducted a pre-registered (osf.io/9y26x), randomized, blinded survey experiment in factorial design. A survey firm provided n = 2675 responses, oversampling minoritized populations. Clinical vignettes were randomly manipulated in eight variables with two levels each: disease severity (leukemia versus sleep apnea), whether AI is proven more accurate than human specialists, whether the AI clinic is personalized to the patient through listening and/or tailoring, whether the AI clinic avoids racial and/or financial biases, whether the Primary Care Physician (PCP) promises to explain and incorporate the advice, and whether the PCP nudges the patient towards AI as the established, recommended, and easy choice. Our main outcome measure was selection of AI clinic or human physician specialist clinic (binary, "AI uptake"). We found that with weighting representative to the U.S. population, respondents were almost evenly split (52.9% chose human doctor and 47.1% chose AI clinic). In unweighted experimental contrasts of respondents who met pre-registered criteria for engagement, a PCP's explanation that AI has proven superior accuracy increased uptake (OR = 1.48, CI 1.24-1.77, p < .001), as did a PCP's nudge towards AI as the established choice (OR = 1.25, CI: 1.05-1.50, p = .013), as did reassurance that the AI clinic had trained counselors to listen to the patient's unique perspectives (OR = 1.27, CI: 1.07-1.52, p = .008). Disease severity (leukemia versus sleep apnea) and other manipulations did not affect AI uptake significantly. Compared to White respondents, Black respondents selected AI less often (OR = .73, CI: .55-.96, p = .023) and Native Americans selected it more often (OR: 1.37, CI: 1.01-1.87, p = .041). Older respondents were less likely to choose AI (OR: .99, CI: .987-.999, p = .03), as were those who identified as politically conservative (OR: .65, CI: .52-.81, p < .001) or viewed religion as important (OR: .64, CI: .52-.77, p < .001). For each unit increase in education, the odds are 1.10 greater for selecting an AI provider (OR: 1.10, CI: 1.03-1.18, p = .004). While many patients appear resistant to the use of AI, accuracy information, nudges and a listening patient experience may help increase acceptance. To ensure that the benefits of AI are secured in clinical practice, future research on best methods of physician incorporation and patient decision making is required.
| S-EPMC10198520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSurveys conducted internationally have found widespread interest in artificial intelligence (AI) amongst medical students. No similar surveys have been conducted in Western Australia (WA) and it is not known how medical students in WA feel about the use of AI in healthcare or their understanding of AI. We aim to assess WA medical students' attitudes towards AI in general, AI in healthcare, and the inclusion of AI education in the medical curriculum.MethodsA digital survey instrument was developed based on a review of available literature and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey was piloted with a group of medical students and refined based on their feedback. We then sent this anonymous digital survey to all medical students in WA (approximately 1539 students). Responses were open from the 7th of September 2021 to the 7th of November 2021. Students' categorical responses were qualitatively analysed, and free text comments from the survey were qualitatively analysed using open coding techniques.ResultsOverall, 134 students answered one or more questions (8.9% response rate). The majority of students (82.0%) were 20-29 years old, studying medicine as a postgraduate degree (77.6%), and had started clinical rotations (62.7%). Students were interested in AI (82.6%), self-reported having a basic understanding of AI (84.8%), but few agreed that they had an understanding of the basic computational principles of AI (33.3%) or the limitations of AI (46.2%). Most students (87.5%) had not received teaching in AI. The majority of students (58.6%) agreed that AI should be part of medical training and most (72.7%) wanted more teaching focusing on AI in medicine. Medical students appeared optimistic regarding the role of AI in medicine, with most (74.4%) agreeing with the statement that AI will improve medicine in general. The majority (56.6%) of medical students were not concerned about the impact of AI on their job security as a doctor. Students selected radiology (72.6%), pathology (58.2%), and medical administration (44.8%) as the specialties most likely to be impacted by AI, and psychiatry (61.2%), palliative care (48.5%), and obstetrics and gynaecology (41.0%) as the specialties least likely to be impacted by AI. Qualitative analysis of free text comments identified the use of AI as a tool, and that doctors will not be replaced as common themes.ConclusionMedical students in WA appear to be interested in AI. However, they have not received education about AI and do not feel they understand its basic computational principles or limitations. AI appears to be a current deficit in the medical curriculum in WA, and most students surveyed were supportive of its introduction. These results are consistent with previous surveys conducted internationally.
| S-EPMC10470885 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11795397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith an increase in the number of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms available for clinical settings, appropriate model updating and implementation of updates are imperative to ensure applicability, reproducibility, and patient safety.ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review was to evaluate and assess the model-updating practices of AI and ML clinical models that are used in direct patient-provider clinical decision-making.MethodsWe used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and the PRISMA-P protocol guidance in addition to a modified CHARMS (Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) checklist to conduct this scoping review. A comprehensive medical literature search of databases, including Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify AI and ML algorithms that would impact clinical decision-making at the level of direct patient care. Our primary end point is the rate at which model updating is recommended by published algorithms; we will also conduct an assessment of study quality and risk of bias in all publications reviewed. In addition, we will evaluate the rate at which published algorithms include ethnic and gender demographic distribution information in their training data as a secondary end point.ResultsOur initial literature search yielded approximately 13,693 articles, with approximately 7810 articles to consider for full reviews among our team of 7 reviewers. We plan to complete the review process and disseminate the results by spring of 2023.ConclusionsAlthough AI and ML applications in health care have the potential to improve patient care by reducing errors between measurement and model output, currently there exists more hype than hope because of the lack of proper external validation of these models. We expect to find that the AI and ML model-updating methods are proxies for model applicability and generalizability on implementation. Our findings will add to the field by determining the degree to which published models meet the criteria for clinical validity, real-life implementation, and best practices to optimize model development, and in so doing, reduce the overpromise and underachievement of the contemporary model development process.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/37685.
| S-EPMC9982723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AlphaFold has burst into our lives. A powerful algorithm that underscores the strength of biological sequence data and artificial intelligence (AI). AlphaFold has appended projects and research directions. The database it has been creating promises an untold number of applications with vast potential impacts that are still difficult to surmise. AI approaches can revolutionize personalized treatments and usher in better-informed clinical trials. They promise to make giant leaps toward reshaping and revamping drug discovery strategies, selecting and prioritizing combinations of drug targets. Here, we briefly overview AI in structural biology, including in molecular dynamics simulations and prediction of microbiota-human protein-protein interactions. We highlight the advancements accomplished by the deep-learning-powered AlphaFold in protein structure prediction and their powerful impact on the life sciences. At the same time, AlphaFold does not resolve the decades-long protein folding challenge, nor does it identify the folding pathways. The models that AlphaFold provides do not capture conformational mechanisms like frustration and allostery, which are rooted in ensembles, and controlled by their dynamic distributions. Allostery and signaling are properties of populations. AlphaFold also does not generate ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins and regions, instead describing them by their low structural probabilities. Since AlphaFold generates single ranked structures, rather than conformational ensembles, it cannot elucidate the mechanisms of allosteric activating driver hotspot mutations nor of allosteric drug resistance. However, by capturing key features, deep learning techniques can use the single predicted conformation as the basis for generating a diverse ensemble.
| S-EPMC9442638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to evaluate women's attitudes towards artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies used in mental health care. We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey of U.S. adults reporting female sex at birth focused on bioethical considerations for AI-based technologies in mental healthcare, stratifying by previous pregnancy. Survey respondents (n = 258) were open to AI-based technologies in mental healthcare but concerned about medical harm and inappropriate data sharing. They held clinicians, developers, healthcare systems, and the government responsible for harm. Most reported it was "very important" for them to understand AI output. More previously pregnant respondents reported being told AI played a small role in mental healthcare was "very important" versus those not previously pregnant (P = .03). We conclude that protections against harm, transparency around data use, preservation of the patient-clinician relationship, and patient comprehension of AI predictions may facilitate trust in AI-based technologies for mental healthcare among women.
| S-EPMC10329494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trustworthy medical AI requires transparency about the development and testing of underlying algorithms to identify biases and communicate potential risks of harm. Abundant guidance exists on how to achieve transparency for medical AI products, but it is unclear whether publicly available information adequately informs about their risks. To assess this, we retrieved public documentation on the 14 available CE-certified AI-based radiology products of the II b risk category in the EU from vendor websites, scientific publications, and the European EUDAMED database. Using a self-designed survey, we reported on their development, validation, ethical considerations, and deployment caveats, according to trustworthy AI guidelines. We scored each question with either 0, 0.5, or 1, to rate if the required information was "unavailable", "partially available," or "fully available." The transparency of each product was calculated relative to all 55 questions. Transparency scores ranged from 6.4% to 60.9%, with a median of 29.1%. Major transparency gaps included missing documentation on training data, ethical considerations, and limitations for deployment. Ethical aspects like consent, safety monitoring, and GDPR-compliance were rarely documented. Furthermore, deployment caveats for different demographics and medical settings were scarce. In conclusion, public documentation of authorized medical AI products in Europe lacks sufficient public transparency to inform about safety and risks. We call on lawmakers and regulators to establish legally mandated requirements for public and substantive transparency to fulfill the promise of trustworthy AI for health.
| S-EPMC10919164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ABSTRACT Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) enables remote patient monitoring (RPM) which reduces costs by triaging patients to optimize hospitalization and avoid complications. The FDA regulates AI in medical devices and aims to ensure patient safety, effectiveness, and transparent AI solutions. Objectives: Identify and summarize FDA approved RPM devices to provide information for the US medical device industry based on previous approvals and the markets’ needs. Methods: We searched publicly available databases on FDA-approved RPM devices. Selection criteria were established to classify a solution as AI. Technical information was analyzed on pre-identified 16 parameters for the qualified solutions. Results: A total of 47 RPM devices were reviewed, among which 12.8% were classified as a De Novo product and the remaining devices fell under the 510(K) FDA category. The cardiovascular (74%) AI RPM solutions dominated the US market, followed by ECG-based arrhythmia detection algorithms (59.4%), and Hemodynamics and Vital Sign monitoring algorithms (21.9%). The trend observed in the FDA rejected devices was their inability to be classified into clinically relevant categories (Criteria 2 and 3). Conclusion: The market needs more innovative RPM solutions under the De Novo category, as there are very few. The transparency is low on the technical aspect of AI algorithms. The market needs AI algorithms that can effectively classify patients rather than merely improve device functionality.
| S-EPMC10158563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare, yet little is known about Chinese oncologists' attitudes towards AI. This study investigated oncologists' knowledge, perceptions, and acceptance of AI in China.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 228 oncologists across China. The survey examined demographics, AI exposure, knowledge and attitudes using 5-point Likert scales, and factors influencing AI adoption. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.ResultsRespondents showed moderate understanding of AI concepts (mean 3.39/5), with higher knowledge among younger oncologists. Only 12.8% used ChatGPT. Most (74.13%) agreed AI is beneficial and could innovate healthcare, 52.19% respondents expressed trust in AI technology. Acceptance was cautiously optimistic (mean 3.57/5). Younger respondents (∼30) show significantly higher trust (p = 0.004) and acceptance (p = 0.009) of AI compared to older respondents, while trust is significantly higher among those with master's or doctorate vs. bachelor's degrees (p = 0.032), and acceptance is higher for those with prior IT experience (p = 0.035).Key drivers for AI adoption were improving efficiency (85.09%), quality (85.53%), reducing errors (84.65%), and enabling new approaches (73.25%).ConclusionsChinese oncologists are open to healthcare AI but remain prudently optimistic given limitations. Targeted education, especially for older oncologists, can facilitate AI implementation. AI is largely welcomed for its potential to augment human roles in enhancing efficiency, quality, safety, and innovations in oncology practice.
| S-EPMC11405309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCavernous hemangioma and schwannoma are tumors that both occur in the orbit. Because the treatment strategies of these two tumors are different, it is necessary to distinguish them at treatment initiation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is typically used to differentiate these two tumor types; however, they present similar features in MRI images which increases the difficulty of differential diagnosis. This study aims to devise and develop an artificial intelligence framework to improve the accuracy of clinicians' diagnoses and enable more effective treatment decisions by automatically distinguishing cavernous hemangioma from schwannoma.MethodsMaterial: As the study materials, we chose MRI images as the study materials that represented patients from diverse areas in China who had been referred to our center from more than 45 different hospitals. All images were initially acquired on films, which we scanned into digital versions and recut. Finally, 11,489 images of cavernous hemangioma (from 33 different hospitals) and 3,478 images of schwannoma (from 16 different hospitals) were collected. Labeling: All images were labeled using standard anatomical knowledge and pathological diagnosis. Training: Three types of models were trained in sequence (a total of 96 models), with each model including a specific improvement. The first two model groups were eye- and tumor-positioning models designed to reduce the identification scope, while the third model group consisted of classification models trained to make the final diagnosis.ResultsFirst, internal four-fold cross-validation processes were conducted for all the models. During the validation of the first group, the 32 eye-positioning models were able to localize the position of the eyes with an average precision of 100%. In the second group, the 28 tumor-positioning models were able to reach an average precision above 90%. Subsequently, using the third group, the accuracy of all 32 tumor classification models reached nearly 90%. Next, external validation processes of 32 tumor classification models were conducted. The results showed that the accuracy of the transverse T1-weighted contrast-enhanced sequence reached 91.13%; the accuracy of the remaining models was significantly lower compared with the ground truth.ConclusionsThe findings of this retrospective study show that an artificial intelligence framework can achieve high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in automated differential diagnosis between cavernous hemangioma and schwannoma in a real-world setting, which can help doctors determine appropriate treatments.
| S-EPMC7327353 | biostudies-literature