Application of artificial intelligence in medical technologies: A systematic review of main trends

Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Headache Field

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Headache disorders are highly prevalent worldwide. Rapidly advancing capabilities in artificial intelligence (AI) have expanded headache-related research with the potential to solve unmet needs in the headache field. We provide an overview of AI in headache research in this article.

RECENT FINDINGS

We briefly introduce machine learning models and commonly used evaluation metrics. We then review studies that have utilized AI in the field to advance diagnostic accuracy and classification, predict treatment responses, gather insights from various data sources, and forecast migraine attacks. Furthermore, given the emergence of ChatGPT, a type of large language model (LLM), and the popularity it has gained, we also discuss how LLMs could be used to advance the field. Finally, we discuss the potential pitfalls, bias, and future directions of employing AI in headache medicine. Many recent studies on headache medicine incorporated machine learning, generative AI and LLMs. A comprehensive understanding of potential pitfalls and biases is crucial to using these novel techniques with minimum harm. When used appropriately, AI has the potential to revolutionize headache medicine.

A Systematic Review of the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Care: Where are We, and What's Next?

Background

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into healthcare has transformed the landscape of patient care and healthcare delivery. Despite this, there remains a notable gap in the existing literature synthesizing the comprehensive understanding of AI's utilization in nursing care.

Objective

This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence to comprehensively understand the application of AI in nursing care.

Methods

Studies published between January 2019 and December 2023, identified through CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, PubMed, and Medline, were included in this review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines guided the identification, screening, exclusion, and inclusion of articles. The convergent integrated analysis framework, as proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, was employed to synthesize data from the included studies for theme generation.

Results

A total of 337 records were identified from databases. Among them, 35 duplicates were removed, and 302 records underwent eligibility screening. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, eleven studies were deemed eligible and included in this review. Through data synthesis of these studies, six themes pertaining to the use of AI in nursing care were identified: 1) Risk Identification, 2) Health Assessment, 3) Patient Classification, 4) Research Development, 5) Improved Care Delivery and Medical Records, and 6) Developing a Nursing Care Plan.

Conclusion

This systematic review contributes valuable insights into the multifaceted applications of AI in nursing care. Through the synthesis of data from the included studies, six distinct themes emerged. These findings not only consolidate the current knowledge base but also underscore the diverse ways in which AI is shaping and improving nursing care practices.

Artificial intelligence in diagnosing upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

Purpose

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology has revolutionized diagnostics, optimizing precision and decision-making. Specifically in musculoskeletal imaging, AI tools can improve accuracy for upper extremity pathologies. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of AI models in detecting musculoskeletal pathologies of the upper extremity using different imaging modalities.

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted, involving searches on MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and SciELO. The quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Diagnostic accuracy measures including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR), area under the curve (AUC), and summary receiver operating characteristic were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were also included. All statistical analyses and plots were performed using the R software package.

Results

Thirteen models from ten articles were analyzed. The sensitivity and specificity of the AI models to detect musculoskeletal conditions in the upper extremity were 0.926 (95% CI: 0.900; 0.945) and 0.908 (95% CI: 0.810; 0.958). The PLR, NLR, lnDOR, and the AUC estimates were found to be 19.18 (95% CI: 8.90; 29.34), 0.11 (95% CI: 0.18; 0.46), 4.62 (95% CI: 4.02; 5.22) with a (P < 0.001), and 95%, respectively.

Conclusion

The AI models exhibited strong univariate and bivariate performance in detecting both positive and negative cases within the analyzed dataset of musculoskeletal pathologies in the upper extremity.

Embracing the future-is artificial intelligence already better? A comparative study of artificial intelligence performance in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to revolutionize patient care and clinical decision-making. This study aimed to explore the reliability of large language models in neurology by comparing the performance of an AI chatbot with neurologists in diagnostic accuracy and decision-making.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted. A pool of clinical cases from the American Academy of Neurology's Question of the Day application was used as the basis for the study. The AI chatbot used was ChatGPT, based on GPT-3.5. The results were then compared to neurology peers who also answered the questions-a mean of 1500 neurologists/neurology residents.

RESULTS

The study included 188 questions across 22 different categories. The AI chatbot demonstrated a mean success rate of 71.3% in providing correct answers, with varying levels of proficiency across different neurology categories. Compared to neurology peers, the AI chatbot performed at a similar level, with a mean success rate of 69.2% amongst peers. Additionally, the AI chatbot achieved a correct diagnosis in 85.0% of cases and it provided an adequate justification for its correct responses in 96.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the potential of AI, particularly large language models, in assisting with clinical reasoning and decision-making in neurology and emphasizes the importance of AI as a complementary tool to human expertise. Future advancements and refinements are needed to enhance the AI chatbot's performance and broaden its application across various medical specialties.