Application of Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Nursing of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

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.

Are current clinical studies on artificial intelligence-based medical devices comprehensive enough to support a full health technology assessment? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence-based Medical Devices (AI-based MDs) are experiencing exponential growth in healthcare. This study aimed to investigate whether current studies assessing AI contain the information required for health technology assessment (HTA) by HTA bodies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology to extract articles published between 2016 and 2021 related to the assessment of AI-based MDs. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, technology, algorithms, comparators, and results. AI quality assessment and HTA scores were calculated to evaluate whether the items present in the included studies were concordant with the HTA requirements. We performed a linear regression for the HTA and AI scores with the explanatory variables of the impact factor, publication date, and medical specialty. We conducted a univariate analysis of the HTA score and a multivariate analysis of the AI score with an alpha risk of 5 %.

RESULTS

Of 5578 retrieved records, 56 were included. The mean AI quality assessment score was 67 %; 32 % of articles had an AI quality score ≥ 70 %, 50 % had a score between 50 % and 70 %, and 18 % had a score under 50 %. The highest quality scores were observed for the study design (82 %) and optimisation (69 %) categories, whereas the scores were lowest in the clinical practice category (23 %). The mean HTA score was 52 % for all seven domains. 100 % of the studies assessed clinical effectiveness, whereas only 9 % evaluated safety, and 20 % evaluated economic issues. There was a statistically significant relationship between the impact factor and the HTA and AI scores (both p = 0.046).

DISCUSSION

Clinical studies on AI-based MDs have limitations and often lack adapted, robust, and complete evidence. High-quality datasets are also required because the output data can only be trusted if the inputs are reliable. The existing assessment frameworks are not specifically designed to assess AI-based MDs. From the perspective of regulatory authorities, we suggest that these frameworks should be adapted to assess the interpretability, explainability, cybersecurity, and safety of ongoing updates. From the perspective of HTA agencies, we highlight that transparency, professional and patient acceptance, ethical issues, and organizational changes are required for the implementation of these devices. Economic assessments of AI should rely on a robust methodology (business impact or health economic models) to provide decision-makers with more reliable evidence.

CONCLUSION

Currently, AI studies are insufficient to cover HTA prerequisites. HTA processes also need to be adapted because they do not consider the important specificities of AI-based MDs. Specific HTA workflows and accurate assessment tools should be designed to standardise evaluations, generate reliable evidence, and create confidence.

Emerging Applications of Deep Learning in Bone Tumors: Current Advances and Challenges

Deep learning is a subfield of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and multiple deep learning-based AI models have been applied to musculoskeletal diseases. Deep learning has shown the capability to assist clinical diagnosis and prognosis prediction in a spectrum of musculoskeletal disorders, including fracture detection, cartilage and spinal lesions identification, and osteoarthritis severity assessment. Meanwhile, deep learning has also been extensively explored in diverse tumors such as prostate, breast, and lung cancers. Recently, the application of deep learning emerges in bone tumors. A growing number of deep learning models have demonstrated good performance in detection, segmentation, classification, volume calculation, grading, and assessment of tumor necrosis rate in primary and metastatic bone tumors based on both radiological (such as X-ray, CT, MRI, SPECT) and pathological images, implicating a potential for diagnosis assistance and prognosis prediction of deep learning in bone tumors. In this review, we first summarized the workflows of deep learning methods in medical images and the current applications of deep learning-based AI for diagnosis and prognosis prediction in bone tumors. Moreover, the current challenges in the implementation of the deep learning method and future perspectives in this field were extensively discussed.