Dataset Information

A time motion study of manual versus artificial intelligence methods for wound assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This time-motion study explored the amount of time clinicians spent on wound assessments in a real-world environment using wound assessment digital application utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. manual methods. The study also aimed at comparing the proportion of captured quality wound images on the first attempt by the assessment method.

Methods

Clinicians practicing at Valley Wound Center who agreed to join the study were asked to record the time needed to complete wound assessment activities for patients with active wounds referred for a routine evaluation on the follow-up days at the clinic. Assessment activities included: labelling wounds, capturing images, measuring wounds, calculating surface areas, and transferring data into the patient's record.

Results

A total of 91 patients with 115 wounds were assessed. The average time to capture and access wound image with the AI digital tool was significantly faster than a standard digital camera with an average of 62 seconds (P<0.001). The digital application was significantly faster by 77% at accurately measuring and calculating the wound surface area with an average of 45.05 seconds (P<0.001). Overall, the average time to complete a wound assessment using Swift was significantly faster by 79%. Using the AI application, the staff completed all steps in about half of the time (54%) normally spent on manual wound evaluation activities. Moreover, acquiring acceptable wound image was significantly more likely to be achieved the first time using the digital tool than the manual methods (92.2% vs. 75.7%, P<0.004).

Conclusions

Using the digital assessment tool saved significant time for clinicians in assessing wounds. It also successfully captured quality wound images at the first attempt.

SUBMITTER: Mohammed HT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9333325 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAccurate assessment of wound area and percentage of granulation tissue (PGT) are important for optimizing wound care and healing outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based wound assessment tools have the potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of wound area and PGT measurement, while improving efficiency of wound care workflows.ObjectiveTo develop a quantitative and qualitative method to evaluate AI-based wound assessment tools compared with expert human assessments.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study was performed across 2 independent wound centers using deidentified wound photographs collected for routine care (site 1, 110 photographs taken between May 1 and 31, 2018; site 2, 89 photographs taken between January 1 and December 31, 2019). Digital wound photographs of patients were selected chronologically from the electronic medical records from the general population of patients visiting the wound centers. For inclusion in the study, the complete wound edge and a ruler were required to be visible; circumferential ulcers were specifically excluded. Four wound specialists (2 per site) and an AI-based wound assessment service independently traced wound area and granulation tissue.Main outcomes and measuresThe quantitative performance of AI tracings was evaluated by statistically comparing error measure distributions between test AI traces and reference human traces (AI vs human) with error distributions between independent traces by 2 humans (human vs human). Quantitative outcomes included statistically significant differences in error measures of false-negative area (FNA), false-positive area (FPA), and absolute relative error (ARE) between AI vs human and human vs human comparisons of wound area and granulation tissue tracings. Six masked attending physician reviewers (3 per site) viewed randomized area tracings for AI and human annotators and qualitatively assessed them. Qualitative outcomes included statistically significant difference in the absolute difference between AI-based PGT measurements and mean reviewer visual PGT estimates compared with PGT estimate variability measures (ie, range, standard deviation) across reviewers.ResultsA total of 199 photographs were selected for the study across both sites; mean (SD) patient age was 64 (18) years (range, 17-95 years) and 127 (63.8%) were women. The comparisons of AI vs human with human vs human for FPA and ARE were not statistically significant. AI vs human FNA was slightly elevated compared with human vs human FNA (median [IQR], 7.7% [2.7%-21.2%] vs 5.7% [1.6%-14.9%]; P < .001), indicating that AI traces tended to slightly underestimate the human reference wound boundaries compared with human test traces. Two of 6 reviewers had a statistically higher frequency in agreement that human tracings met the standard area definition, but overall agreement was moderate (352 yes responses of 583 total responses [60.4%] for AI and 793 yes responses of 1166 total responses [68.0%] for human tracings). AI PGT measurements fell in the typical range of variation in interreviewer visual PGT estimates; however, visual PGT estimates varied considerably (mean range, 34.8%; mean SD, 19.6%).Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides a framework for evaluating AI-based digital wound assessment tools that can be extended to automated measurements of other wound features or adapted to evaluate other AI-based digital image diagnostic tools. As AI-based wound assessment tools become more common across wound care settings, it will be important to rigorously validate their performance in helping clinicians obtain accurate wound assessments to guide clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundPsoriasis is one of the most frequent inflammatory skin conditions and could be treated via tele-dermatology, provided that the current lack of reliable tools for objective severity assessments is overcome. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) has a prominent level of subjectivity and is rarely used in real practice, although it is the most widely accepted metric for measuring psoriasis severity currently.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop an image-artificial intelligence (AI)-based validated system for severity assessment with the explicit intention of facilitating long-term management of patients with psoriasis.MethodsA deep learning system was trained to estimate the PASI score by using 14,096 images from 2367 patients with psoriasis. We used 1962 patients from January 2015 to April 2021 to train the model and the other 405 patients from May 2021 to July 2021 to validate it. A multiview feature enhancement block was designed to combine vision features from different perspectives to better simulate the visual diagnostic method in clinical practice. A classification header along with a regression header was simultaneously applied to generate PASI scores, and an extra cross-teacher header after these 2 headers was designed to revise their output. The mean average error (MAE) was used as the metric to evaluate the accuracy of the predicted PASI score. By making the model minimize the MAE value, the model becomes closer to the target value. Then, the proposed model was compared with 43 experienced dermatologists. Finally, the proposed model was deployed into an app named SkinTeller on the WeChat platform.ResultsThe proposed image-AI-based PASI-estimating model outperformed the average performance of 43 experienced dermatologists with a 33.2% performance gain in the overall PASI score. The model achieved the smallest MAE of 2.05 at 3 input images by the ablation experiment. In other words, for the task of psoriasis severity assessment, the severity score predicted by our model was close to the PASI score diagnosed by experienced dermatologists. The SkinTeller app has been used 3369 times for PASI scoring in 1497 patients from 18 hospitals, and its excellent performance was confirmed by a feedback survey of 43 dermatologist users.ConclusionsAn image-AI-based psoriasis severity assessment model has been proposed to automatically calculate PASI scores in an efficient, objective, and accurate manner. The SkinTeller app may be a promising alternative for dermatologists' accurate assessment in the real world and chronic disease self-management in patients with psoriasis.

Project description:Precision medicine has the potential to revolutionize the way cardiovascular diseases are diagnosed, predicted, and treated by tailoring treatment strategies to the individual characteristics of each patient. Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently emerged as a promising tool for improving the accuracy and efficiency of precision cardiovascular medicine. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify and summarize the current state of the literature on the use of AI in precision cardiovascular medicine. A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Scopes, Google Scholar, and PubMed, was conducted to identify relevant studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 28 studies were included in the review. We found that AI is being increasingly applied in various areas of cardiovascular medicine, including the diagnosis, prognosis of cardiovascular diseases, risk prediction and stratification, and treatment planning. As a result, most of these studies focused on prediction (50%), followed by diagnosis (21%), phenotyping (14%), and risk stratification (14%). A variety of machine learning models were utilized in these studies, with logistic regression being the most used (36%), followed by random forest (32%), support vector machine (25%), and deep learning models such as neural networks (18%). Other models, such as hierarchical clustering (11%), Cox regression (11%), and natural language processing (4%), were also utilized. The data sources used in these studies included electronic health records (79%), imaging data (43%), and omics data (4%). We found that AI is being increasingly applied in various areas of cardiovascular medicine, including the diagnosis, prognosis of cardiovascular diseases, risk prediction and stratification, and treatment planning. The results of the review showed that AI has the potential to improve the performance of cardiovascular disease diagnosis and prognosis, as well as to identify individuals at high risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. However, further research is needed to fully evaluate the clinical utility and effectiveness of AI-based approaches in precision cardiovascular medicine. Overall, our review provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in the field of AI-based methods for precision cardiovascular medicine and offered new insights for researchers interested in this research area.

Project description:PurposeThe application of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) in medical education is a relatively new course. There are still great differences in the existence, quantity, provision, and depth of bedside ultrasound education. The left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) has been successfully used in several studies as a parameter for hemodynamic management of critically ill patients, especially in the evaluation of fluid responsiveness. While LVOT-VTI has been broadly used, valuable applications using artificial intelligence (AI) in PoCUS is still limited. We aimed to identify the degree of correlation between auto LVOT-VTI and the manual LVOT-VTI acquired by PoCUS trained ICU doctors.MethodsAmong the 58 ICU doctors who attended PoCUS training from 1 September 2019 to 30 November 2020, 46 ICU doctors who trained for more than 3 months were enrolled. At the end of PoCUS training, each of the enrolled ICU doctors acquired echocardiography parameters of a new ICU patient in 2 h after new patient was admitted. One of the two bedside expert sonographers would take standard echocardiogram of new ICU patients within 24 h. For ICU doctors, manual LVOT-VTI was obtained for reference and auto LVOT-VTI was calculated instantly by using an AI software tool. Based on the image quality of the auto LVOT-VTI, ICU patients was separated into ideal group (n = 31) and average group (n = 15).ResultsLeft ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDd, p = 0.1028), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, p = 0.3251), left atrial dimension (LA-d, p = 0.0962), left ventricular E/A ratio (p = 0.160), left ventricular wall motion (p = 0.317) and pericardial effusion (p = 1) had no significant difference between trained ICU doctors and expert sonographer. ICU patients in average group had greater sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (7.33 ± 1.58 vs. 4.09 ± 0.57, p = 0.022) and lactic acid (3.67 ± 0.86 mmol/L vs. 1.46 ± 0.12 mmol/L, p = 0.0009) with greater value of LVEDd (51.93 ± 1.07 vs. 47.57 ± 0.89, p = 0.0053), LA-d (39.06 ± 1.47 vs. 35.22 ± 0.98, p = 0.0334) and percentage of decreased wall motion (p = 0.0166) than ideal group. There were no significant differences of δLVOT-VTI (|manual LVOT-VTI - auto LVOT-VTI|/manual VTI*100%) between the two groups (8.8% ± 1.3% vs. 10% ± 2%, p = 0.6517). Statistically, significant correlations between manual LVOT-VTI and auto LVOT-VTI were present in the ideal group (R2 = 0.815, p = 0.00) and average group (R2 = 0.741, p = 0.00).ConclusionsICU doctors could achieve the satisfied level of expertise as expert sonographers after 3 months of PoCUS training. Nearly two thirds of the enrolled ICU doctors could obtain the ideal view and one third of them could acquire the average view. ICU patients with higher SOFA scores and lactic acid were less likely to acquire the ideal view. Manual and auto LVOT-VTI had statistically significant agreement in both ideal and average groups. Auto LVOT-VTI in ideal view was more relevant with the manual LVOT-VTI than the average view. AI might provide real-time guidance among novice operators who lack expertise to acquire the ideal standard view.

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:BackgroundGiven the rapidity with which artificial intelligence is gaining momentum in clinical medicine, current physician leaders have called for more incorporation of artificial intelligence topics into undergraduate medical education. This is to prepare future physicians to better work together with artificial intelligence technology. However, the first step in curriculum development is to survey the needs of end users. There has not been a study to determine which media and which topics are most preferred by US medical students to learn about the topic of artificial intelligence in medicine.ObjectiveWe aimed to survey US medical students on the need to incorporate artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education and their preferred means to do so to assist with future education initiatives.MethodsA mixed methods survey comprising both specific questions and a write-in response section was sent through Qualtrics to US medical students in May 2021. Likert scale questions were used to first assess various perceptions of artificial intelligence in medicine. Specific questions were posed regarding learning format and topics in artificial intelligence.ResultsWe surveyed 390 US medical students with an average age of 26 (SD 3) years from 17 different medical programs (the estimated response rate was 3.5%). A majority (355/388, 91.5%) of respondents agreed that training in artificial intelligence concepts during medical school would be useful for their future. While 79.4% (308/388) were excited to use artificial intelligence technologies, 91.2% (353/387) either reported that their medical schools did not offer resources or were unsure if they did so. Short lectures (264/378, 69.8%), formal electives (180/378, 47.6%), and Q and A panels (167/378, 44.2%) were identified as preferred formats, while fundamental concepts of artificial intelligence (247/379, 65.2%), when to use artificial intelligence in medicine (227/379, 59.9%), and pros and cons of using artificial intelligence (224/379, 59.1%) were the most preferred topics for enhancing their training.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that current US medical students recognize the importance of artificial intelligence in medicine and acknowledge that current formal education and resources to study artificial intelligence-related topics are limited in most US medical schools. Respondents also indicated that a hybrid formal/flexible format would be most appropriate for incorporating artificial intelligence as a topic in US medical schools. Based on these data, we conclude that there is a definitive knowledge gap in artificial intelligence education within current medical education in the US. Further, the results suggest there is a disparity in opinions on the specific format and topics to be introduced.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsCurrent 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND: All polypeptide backbones have the potential to form amyloid fibrils, which are associated with a number of degenerative disorders. However, the likelihood that amyloidosis would actually occur under physiological conditions depends largely on the amino acid composition of a protein. We explore using a naive Bayesian classifier and a weighted decision tree for predicting the amyloidogenicity of immunoglobulin sequences. RESULTS: The average accuracy based on leave-one-out (LOO) cross validation of a Bayesian classifier generated from 143 amyloidogenic sequences is 60.84%. This is consistent with the average accuracy of 61.15% for a holdout test set comprised of 103 AM and 28 non-amyloidogenic sequences. The LOO cross validation accuracy increases to 81.08% when the training set is augmented by the holdout test set. In comparison, the average classification accuracy for the holdout test set obtained using a decision tree is 78.64%. Non-amyloidogenic sequences are predicted with average LOO cross validation accuracies between 74.05% and 77.24% using the Bayesian classifier, depending on the training set size. The accuracy for the holdout test set was 89%. For the decision tree, the non-amyloidogenic prediction accuracy is 75.00%. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study indicates that both classification methods may be promising in providing straightforward predictions on the amyloidogenicity of a sequence. Nevertheless, the number of available sequences that satisfy the premises of this study are limited, and are consequently smaller than the ideal training set size. Increasing the size of the training set clearly increases the accuracy, and the expansion of the training set to include not only more derivatives, but more alignments, would make the method more sound. The accuracy of the classifiers may also be improved when additional factors, such as structural and physico-chemical data, are considered. The development of this type of classifier has significant applications in evaluating engineered antibodies, and may be adapted for evaluating engineered proteins in general.