Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review

Detecting Algorithmic Errors and Patient Harms for AI-Enabled Medical Devices in Randomized Controlled Trials: Protocol for a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) medical devices have the potential to transform existing clinical workflows and ultimately improve patient outcomes. AI medical devices have shown potential for a range of clinical tasks such as diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutic decision-making such as drug dosing. There is, however, an urgent need to ensure that these technologies remain safe for all populations. Recent literature demonstrates the need for rigorous performance error analysis to identify issues such as algorithmic encoding of spurious correlations (eg, protected characteristics) or specific failure modes that may lead to patient harm. Guidelines for reporting on studies that evaluate AI medical devices require the mention of performance error analysis; however, there is still a lack of understanding around how performance errors should be analyzed in clinical studies, and what harms authors should aim to detect and report.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review will assess the frequency and severity of AI errors and adverse events (AEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating AI medical devices as interventions in clinical settings. The review will also explore how performance errors are analyzed including whether the analysis includes the investigation of subgroup-level outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review will identify and select RCTs assessing AI medical devices. Search strategies will be deployed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinical trial registries to identify relevant papers. RCTs identified in bibliographic databases will be cross-referenced with clinical trial registries. The primary outcomes of interest are the frequency and severity of AI errors, patient harms, and reported AEs. Quality assessment of RCTs will be based on version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Data analysis will include a comparison of error rates and patient harms between study arms, and a meta-analysis of the rates of patient harm in control versus intervention arms will be conducted if appropriate.

RESULTS

The project was registered on PROSPERO in February 2023. Preliminary searches have been completed and the search strategy has been designed in consultation with an information specialist and methodologist. Title and abstract screening started in September 2023. Full-text screening is ongoing and data collection and analysis began in April 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluations of AI medical devices have shown promising results; however, reporting of studies has been variable. Detection, analysis, and reporting of performance errors and patient harms is vital to robustly assess the safety of AI medical devices in RCTs. Scoping searches have illustrated that the reporting of harms is variable, often with no mention of AEs. The findings of this systematic review will identify the frequency and severity of AI performance errors and patient harms and generate insights into how errors should be analyzed to account for both overall and subgroup performance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023387747; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=387747.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/51614.

Exploring clinical specialists' perspectives on the future role of AI: evaluating replacement perceptions, benefits, and drawbacks

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Over the past few decades, the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has surged in popularity, and its application in the medical field is witnessing a global increase. Nevertheless, the implementation of AI-based healthcare solutions has been slow in developing nations like Pakistan. This unique study aims to assess the opinion of clinical specialists on the future replacement of AI, its associated benefits, and its drawbacks in form southern region of Pakistan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional selective study was conducted from 140 clinical specialists (Surgery = 24, Pathology = 31, Radiology = 35, Gynecology = 35, Pediatric = 17) from the neglected southern Punjab region of Pakistan. The study was analyzed using χ2 - the test of association and the nexus between different factors was examined by multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Out of 140 respondents, 34 (24.3%) believed hospitals were ready for AI, while 81 (57.9%) disagreed. Additionally, 42(30.0%) were concerned about privacy violations, and 70(50%) feared AI could lead to unemployment. Specialists with less than 6 years of experience are more likely to embrace AI (p = 0.0327, OR = 3.184, 95% C.I; 0.262, 3.556) and those who firmly believe that AI knowledge will not replace their future tasks exhibit a lower likelihood of accepting AI (p = 0.015, OR = 0.235, 95% C.I: (0.073, 0.758). Clinical specialists who perceive AI as a technology that encompasses both drawbacks and benefits demonstrated a higher likelihood of accepting its adoption (p = 0.084, OR = 2.969, 95% C.I; 0.865, 5.187).

CONCLUSION

Clinical specialists have embraced AI as the future of the medical field while acknowledging concerns about privacy and unemployment.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review

This scoping review of randomised controlled trials on artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical practice reveals an expanding interest in AI across clinical specialties and locations. The USA and China are leading in the number of trials, with a focus on deep learning systems for medical imaging, particularly in gastroenterology and radiology. A majority of trials (70 [81%] of 86) report positive primary endpoints, primarily related to diagnostic yield or performance; however, the predominance of single-centre trials, little demographic reporting, and varying reports of operational efficiency raise concerns about the generalisability and practicality of these results. Despite the promising outcomes, considering the likelihood of publication bias and the need for more comprehensive research including multicentre trials, diverse outcome measures, and improved reporting standards is crucial. Future AI trials should prioritise patient-relevant outcomes to fully understand AI's true effects and limitations in health care.

Participant flow diagrams for health equity in AI

Selection bias can arise through many aspects of a study, including recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, input-level exclusion and outcome-level exclusion, and often reflects the underrepresentation of populations historically disadvantaged in medical research. The effects of selection bias can be further amplified when non-representative samples are used in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications to construct clinical algorithms. Building on the "Data Cards" initiative for transparency in AI research, we advocate for the addition of a participant flow diagram for AI studies detailing relevant sociodemographic and/or clinical characteristics of excluded participants across study phases, with the goal of identifying potential algorithmic biases before their clinical implementation. We include both a model for this flow diagram as well as a brief case study explaining how it could be implemented in practice. Through standardized reporting of participant flow diagrams, we aim to better identify potential inequities embedded in AI applications, facilitating more reliable and equitable clinical algorithms.

Trust and acceptability of data-driven clinical recommendations in everyday practice: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Increasing attention is being given to the analysis of large health datasets to derive new clinical decision support systems (CDSS). However, few data-driven CDSS are being adopted into clinical practice. Trust in these tools is believed to be fundamental for acceptance and uptake but to date little attention has been given to defining or evaluating trust in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVES

A scoping review was conducted to explore how and where acceptability and trustworthiness of data-driven CDSS have been assessed from the health professional's perspective.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar were searched in March 2022 using terms expanded from: "data-driven" AND "clinical decision support" AND "acceptability". Included studies focused on healthcare practitioner-facing data-driven CDSS, relating directly to clinical care. They included trust or a proxy as an outcome, or in the discussion. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) is followed in the reporting of this review.

RESULTS

3291 papers were screened, with 85 primary research studies eligible for inclusion. Studies covered a diverse range of clinical specialisms and intended contexts, but hypothetical systems (24) outnumbered those in clinical use (18). Twenty-five studies measured trust, via a wide variety of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. A further 24 discussed themes of trust without it being explicitly evaluated, and from these, themes of transparency, explainability, and supporting evidence were identified as factors influencing healthcare practitioner trust in data-driven CDSS.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing body of research on data-driven CDSS, but few studies have explored stakeholder perceptions in depth, with limited focused research on trustworthiness. Further research on healthcare practitioner acceptance, including requirements for transparency and explainability, should inform clinical implementation.

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77-94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.

Prediction models using artificial intelligence and longitudinal data from electronic health records: a systematic methodological review

OBJECTIVE

To describe and appraise the use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques that can cope with longitudinal data from electronic health records (EHRs) to predict health-related outcomes.

METHODS

This review included studies in any language that: EHR was at least one of the data sources, collected longitudinal data, used an AI technique capable of handling longitudinal data, and predicted any health-related outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplorer from inception to January 3, 2022. Information on the dataset, prediction task, data preprocessing, feature selection, method, validation, performance, and implementation was extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. Risk of bias and completeness of reporting were assessed using a short form of PROBAST and TRIPOD, respectively.

RESULTS

Eighty-one studies were included. Follow-up time and number of registers per patient varied greatly, and most predicted disease development or next event based on diagnoses and drug treatments. Architectures generally were based on Recurrent Neural Networks-like layers, though in recent years combining different layers or transformers has become more popular. About half of the included studies performed hyperparameter tuning and used attention mechanisms. Most performed a single train-test partition and could not correctly assess the variability of the model's performance. Reporting quality was poor, and a third of the studies were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

AI models are increasingly using longitudinal data. However, the heterogeneity in reporting methodology and results, and the lack of public EHR datasets and code sharing, complicate the possibility of replication.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42022331388).

Technical/Algorithm, Stakeholder, and Society (TASS) barriers to the application of artificial intelligence in medicine: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning and predictive analytics, has shown great promise in health care. Despite its strong potential, there has been limited use in health care settings. In this systematic review, we aim to determine the main barriers to successful implementation of AI in healthcare and discuss potential ways to overcome these challenges.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in PubMed (1/1/2001-1/1/2023). The search was restricted to publications in the English language, and human study subjects. We excluded articles that did not discuss AI, machine learning, predictive analytics, and barriers to the use of these techniques in health care. Using grounded theory methodology, we abstracted concepts to identify major barriers to AI use in medicine.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 2,382 articles. After reviewing the 306 included papers, we developed 19 major themes, which we categorized into three levels: the Technical/Algorithm, Stakeholder, and Social levels (TASS). These themes included: Lack of Explainability, Need for Validation Protocols, Need for Standards for Interoperability, Need for Reporting Guidelines, Need for Standardization of Performance Metrics, Lack of Plan for Updating Algorithm, Job Loss, Skills Loss, Workflow Challenges, Loss of Patient Autonomy and Consent, Disturbing the Patient-Clinician Relationship, Lack of Trust in AI, Logistical Challenges, Lack of strategic plan, Lack of Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Proof of Efficacy, Privacy, Liability, Bias and Social Justice, and Education.

CONCLUSION

We identified 19 major barriers to the use of AI in healthcare and categorized them into three levels: the Technical/Algorithm, Stakeholder, and Social levels (TASS). Future studies should expand on barriers in pediatric care and focus on developing clearly defined protocols to overcome these barriers.

Scoping Meta-Review of Methods Used to Assess Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices for Heart Failure

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are playing increasingly important roles, permeating the field of medical devices (MDs). This rapid progress has not yet been matched by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process, which still needs to define a common methodology for assessing AI/ML-based MDs. To collect existing evidence from the literature about the methods used to assess AI-based MDs, with a specific focus on those used for the management of heart failure (HF), the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) conducted a scoping meta-review. This manuscript presents the results of this search, which covered the period from January 1974 to October 2022. After careful independent screening, 21 reviews, mainly conducted in North America and Europe, were retained and included. Among the findings were that deep learning is the most commonly utilised method and that electronic health records and registries are among the most prevalent sources of data for AI/ML algorithms. Out of the 21 included reviews, 19 focused on risk prediction and/or the early diagnosis of HF. Furthermore, 10 reviews provided evidence of the impact on the incidence/progression of HF, and 13 on the length of stay. From an HTA perspective, the main areas requiring improvement are the quality assessment of studies on AI/ML (included in 11 out of 21 reviews) and their data sources, as well as the definition of the criteria used to assess the selection of the most appropriate AI/ML algorithm.