Clinical Trials for Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study of Registered Trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

[18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in combination with clinical data in predicting overall survival in non-small-cell lung cancer patients: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has an established role in evaluating patients with lung cancer. The aim of this work was to assess the predictive capability of [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) PET/CT parameters on overall survival (OS) in lung cancer patients using an artificial neural network (ANN) in parallel with conventional statistical analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed on a group of 165 lung cancer patients (98M, 67F). PET features associated with the primary tumor: maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax, SUVmean), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and area under the curve-cumulative SUV histogram (AUC-CSH) and metastatic lesions (SUVmaxtotal, SUVmeantotal, TLGtotal, and MTVtotal) were evaluated. In parallel with conventional statistical analysis (Chi-Square analysis for nominal data, Student's t test for continuous data), the data was evaluated using an ANN. There were 97 input variables in 165 patients using a binary classification of either below, or greater than/equal to median survival post primary diagnosis. Additionally, phantom study was performed to assess the most optimal contouring method.

RESULTS

Males had statistically higher SUVmax (mean: 10.7 vs 8.9; p = 0.020), MTV (mean: 66.5 cm3 vs. 21.5 cm3; p = 0.001), TLG (mean 404.7 vs. 115.0; p = 0.003), TLGtotal (mean: 946.7 vs. 433.3; p = 0.014) and MTVtotal (mean: 242.0 cm3 vs. 103.7 cm3; p = 0.027) than females. The ANN after training and validation was optimised with a final architecture of 4 scaling layer inputs (TLGtotal, SUVmaxtotal, SUVmeantotal and disease stage) and receiving operator characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated an AUC of 0.764 (sensitivity of 92.3%, specificity of 57.1%).

CONCLUSION

Conventional statistical analysis and the ANN provided concordant findings in relation to variables that predict decreased survival. The ANN provided a weighted algorithm of the 4 key features to predict decreased survival.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Identification of parameters which can predict survival in lung cancer patients might be helpful in choosing the group of patients who require closer look during the follow-up.

Adaptive Cancer Therapy in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Therapeutic resistance is a major challenge facing the design of effective cancer treatments. Adaptive cancer therapy is in principle the most viable approach to manage cancer's adaptive dynamics through drug combinations with dose timing and modulation. However, there are numerous open issues facing the clinical success of adaptive therapy. Chief among these issues is the feasibility of real-time predictions of treatment response which represent a bedrock requirement of adaptive therapy. Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to learn prediction models of treatment response from clinical, molecular, and radiomics data about patients and their treatments. The article explores this potential through a proposed integration model of Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPTs) in a closed loop with adaptive treatments to predict the trajectories of disease progression. The conceptual model and the challenges facing its realization are discussed in the broader context of artificial intelligence integration in oncology.

Artificial intelligence in colorectal surgery: an AI-powered systematic review

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize surgery in the coming years. Still, it is essential to clarify what the meaningful current applications are and what can be reasonably expected. This AI-powered review assessed the role of AI in colorectal surgery. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and gray literature was conducted on all available articles on AI in colorectal surgery (from January 1 1997 to March 1 2021), aiming to define the perioperative applications of AI. Potentially eligible studies were identified using novel software powered by natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) technologies dedicated to systematic reviews. Out of 1238 articles identified, 115 were included in the final analysis. Available articles addressed the role of AI in several areas of interest. In the preoperative phase, AI can be used to define tailored treatment algorithms, support clinical decision-making, assess the risk of complications, and predict surgical outcomes and survival. Intraoperatively, AI-enhanced surgery and integration of AI in robotic platforms have been suggested. After surgery, AI can be implemented in the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathway. Additional areas of applications included the assessment of patient-reported outcomes, automated pathology assessment, and research. Available data on these aspects are limited, and AI in colorectal surgery is still in its infancy. However, the rapid evolution of technologies makes it likely that it will increasingly be incorporated into everyday practice.

Artificial Intelligence in Bone Marrow Histological Diagnostics: Potential Applications and Challenges

The expanding digitalization of routine diagnostic histological slides holds a potential to apply artificial intelligence (AI) to pathology, including bone marrow (BM) histology. In this perspective, we describe potential tasks in diagnostics that can be supported, investigations that can be guided, and questions that can be answered by the future application of AI on whole-slide images of BM biopsies. These range from characterization of cell lineages and quantification of cells and stromal structures to disease prediction. First glimpses show an exciting potential to detect subtle phenotypic changes with AI that are due to specific genotypes. The discussion is illustrated by examples of current AI research using BM biopsy slides. In addition, we briefly discuss current challenges for implementation of AI-supported diagnostics.

How, for whom, and in what contexts will artificial intelligence be adopted in pathology? A realist interview study

OBJECTIVE

There is increasing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology to improve accuracy and efficiency. Studies of clinicians' perceptions of AI have found only moderate acceptability, suggesting further research is needed regarding integration into clinical practice. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' theories concerning how and in what contexts AI is likely to become integrated into pathology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review provided tentative theories that were revised through a realist interview study with 20 pathologists and 5 pathology trainees. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, the tentative theories fitted with interviewees' perceptions and experiences. Analysis focused on identifying the contextual factors that may support or constrain uptake of AI in pathology.

RESULTS

Interviews highlighted the importance of trust in AI, with interviewees emphasizing evaluation and the opportunity for pathologists to become familiar with AI as means for establishing trust. Interviewees expressed a desire to be involved in design and implementation of AI tools, to ensure such tools address pressing needs, but needs vary by subspecialty. Workflow integration is desired but whether AI tools should work automatically will vary according to the task and the context.

CONCLUSIONS

It must not be assumed that AI tools that provide benefit in one subspecialty will provide benefit in others. Pathologists should be involved in the decision to introduce AI, with opportunity to assess strengths and weaknesses. Further research is needed concerning the evidence required to satisfy pathologists regarding the benefits of AI.

Registered Clinical Trials for Artificial Intelligence in Lung Disease: A Scoping Review on ClinicalTrials.gov

Clinical trials are the most effective tools to evaluate the advantages of various diagnostic and treatment modalities. AI used in medical issues, including screening, diagnosis, and treatment decisions, improves health outcomes and patient experiences. This study's objective was to investigate the traits of registered trials on artificial intelligence for lung disease. Clinical studies on AI for lung disease that were present in the ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched, and fifty-three registered trials were included. Forty-six (72.1%) were observational trials, compared to seven (27.9%) that were interventional trials. Only eight trials (15.4%) were completed. Thirty (56.6%) trials were accepting applicants. Clinical studies often included a large number of cases; for example, 24 (32.0%) trials included samples of 100-1000 cases, while 14 (17.5%) trials included samples of 1000-2000 cases. Of the interventional trials, twenty (15.7%) were retrospective studies and twenty (65.7%) were prospective studies.

Characteristics of Artificial Intelligence Clinical Trials in the Field of Healthcare: A Cross-Sectional Study on ClinicalTrials.gov

Artificial intelligence (AI) has driven innovative transformation in healthcare service patterns, despite a lack of understanding of its performance in clinical practice. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of AI-related trials in healthcare based on ClinicalTrials.gov, intending to investigate the trial characteristics and AI's development status. Additionally, the Neo4j graph database and visualization technology were employed to construct an AI technology application graph, achieving a visual representation and analysis of research hotspots in healthcare AI. A total of 1725 eligible trials that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov up to 31 March 2022 were included in this study. The number of trial registrations has dramatically grown each year since 2016. However, the AI-related trials had some design drawbacks and problems with poor-quality result reporting. The proportion of trials with prospective and randomized designs was insufficient, and most studies did not report results upon completion. Currently, most healthcare AI application studies are based on data-driven learning algorithms, covering various disease areas and healthcare scenarios. As few studies have publicly reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov, there is not enough evidence to support an assessment of AI's actual performance. The widespread implementation of AI technology in healthcare still faces many challenges and requires more high-quality prospective clinical validation.

Registered Trials of Artificial Intelligence Conducted on Chronic Liver Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study on ClinicalTrials.gov

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been widely applied in the diagnosis and therapy of chronic liver disease (CLD), but there is currently little insight into the trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Thus, this cross-sectional study was focused on analyzing the progress in the use of AI in CLD.

Methods

Registered trials of AI applied in CLD on ClinicalTrials.gov were searched firstly. All available information was downloaded to Excel (Microsoft Excel, Rong, Rong, China), and duplicates were removed. We extracted the data of the included trials, then analyzed the characteristics of them finally.

Results

Up to the 27th of May 2021, 6835 trials were identified following an initial search, and 20 registered trials were included after screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among those trials, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, 40.0%) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD, 20.0%) were the most widely applied CLDs for AI. Trials started in 2013 until 2021, with 17 trials (85%) registered after 2016. There was a large trend in trial enrolment, with 40% of them including samples more than 500. Five trials (25%) have been completed, but only one of these had available results. The most frequent sponsors and collaborators were both hospitals at 55%, followed by universities at 35% and institutes at 11%, respectively. Of the 20 trials included, 35% (7 trials) were interventional trials and 65% (13 trials) were observational trials. Among 7 interventional trials, most trials were for diagnosis purpose (42.86%, 3 trials); 4 trials (57.14%) were randomized; 3 trials (42.86%) applied behavioral intervention, 1 trial (14.29%) was in device intervention, 2 trials (28.57%) were in diagnostic test, and 1 trial intervention was unknown. Among 13 observational trials, 8 (61.54%) were cohort studies; 6 (46.15%) were prospective studies, 4 (30.77%) were retrospective studies, 2 (15.38%) were cross-sectional studies, and 1 (7.69%) did not involve a temporal perspective.

Conclusion

The study is the first to focus on AI registration trials in CLD, which will aid relevant scholars in understanding the current state of the subject. This study demonstrates that additional research on AI used in the diagnosis and treatment of CLD is required, and timely publication of accessible results from registered trials is essential.

Characteristics of clinical trials related to hip fractures and factors associated with completion

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at investigating the characteristics of clinical trials related to hip fractures that were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. It also aimed to identify potential risk factors associated with completion.

MAIN BODY

We obtained 733 clinical studies related to hip fractures from the ClinicalTrials.gov database and included 470 studies in the analysis. These clinical trials were divided into behavioral, drug/biological, device, procedure, and other categories based on intervention types. Clinical trials investigating drugs or biologics were categorized based on the specific agents administered in each trial. Multiple logistic and Cox regression models were used to test the ability of 24 potential risk factors in predicting recruitment status and completion time, respectively. Among the included clinical trials, 44.89% (211/470) had complete recruitment status. The overall median completion time was 931.00 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 822.56-1039.44 days). The results of only 8.94% (42/470) of clinical trials were presented on the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Bupivacaine (a local anesthetic) was most commonly investigated (in 25 clinical trials); this was followed by ropivacaine (another local anesthetic, 23 clinical trials) and tranexamic acid (a hemostatic, 21 clinical trials). Multivariate analysis showed that trials including children (P = 0.03) and having National Institutes of Health funds (P < 0.01) had significantly higher rates of complete recruitment. Higher enrollment (P < 0.01), National Institutes of Health funding (P < 0.01), location in the United States (P = 0.04), and location in Europe (P = 0.03) predisposed to longer completion time, while studies involving drugs/biologics (P < 0.01) had shorter completion times.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of clinical trials related to hip fractures were completed, but the results of only a small fraction were presented on the ClinicalTrials.gov website. The commonly investigated drugs focused on anesthesia, pain relief, and hemostasis. Several independent risk factors that affect recruitment status and completion time were identified. These factors may guide the design of clinical trials relating to hip fractures.

Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice

Traditional pathology approaches have played an integral role in the delivery of diagnosis, semi-quantitative or qualitative assessment of protein expression, and classification of disease. Technological advances and the increased focus on precision medicine have recently paved the way for the development of digital pathology-based approaches for quantitative pathologic assessments, namely whole slide imaging and artificial intelligence (AI)-based solutions, allowing us to explore and extract information beyond human visual perception. Within the field of immuno-oncology, the application of such methodologies in drug development and translational research have created invaluable opportunities for deciphering complex pathophysiology and the discovery of novel biomarkers and drug targets. With an increasing number of treatment options available for any given disease, practitioners face the growing challenge of selecting the most appropriate treatment for each patient. The ever-increasing utilization of AI-based approaches substantially expands our understanding of the tumor microenvironment, with digital approaches to patient stratification and selection for diagnostic assays supporting the identification of the optimal treatment regimen based on patient profiles. This review provides an overview of the opportunities and limitations around implementing AI-based methods in biomarker discovery and patient selection and discusses how advances in digital pathology and AI should be considered in the current landscape of translational medicine, touching on challenges this technology may face if adopted in clinical settings. The traditional role of pathologists in delivering accurate diagnoses or assessing biomarkers for companion diagnostics may be enhanced in precision, reproducibility, and scale by AI-powered analysis tools.

Deep learning in histopathology: the path to the clinic

Machine learning techniques have great potential to improve medical diagnostics, offering ways to improve accuracy, reproducibility and speed, and to ease workloads for clinicians. In the field of histopathology, deep learning algorithms have been developed that perform similarly to trained pathologists for tasks such as tumor detection and grading. However, despite these promising results, very few algorithms have reached clinical implementation, challenging the balance between hope and hype for these new techniques. This Review provides an overview of the current state of the field, as well as describing the challenges that still need to be addressed before artificial intelligence in histopathology can achieve clinical value.

Registered Trials on Artificial Intelligence Conducted in Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit: A Cross-Sectional Study on ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective: Clinical trials contribute to the development of clinical practice. However, little is known about the current status of trials on artificial intelligence (AI) conducted in emergency department and intensive care unit. The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of registered trials in such field based on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods: Registered trials on AI conducted in emergency department and intensive care unit were searched on ClinicalTrials.gov up to 12th January 2021. The characteristics were analyzed using SPSS21.0 software.

Results: A total of 146 registered trials were identified, including 61 in emergency department and 85 in intensive care unit. They were registered from 2004 to 2021. Regarding locations, 58 were conducted in Europe, 58 in America, 9 in Asia, 4 in Australia, and 17 did not report locations. The enrollment of participants was from 0 to 18,000,000, with a median of 233. Universities were the primary sponsors, which accounted for 43.15%, followed by hospitals (35.62%), and industries/companies (9.59%). Regarding study designs, 85 trials were interventional trials, while 61 were observational trials. Of the 85 interventional trials, 15.29% were for diagnosis and 38.82% for treatment; of the 84 observational trials, 42 were prospective, 14 were retrospective, 2 were cross-sectional, 2 did not report clear information and 1 was unknown. Regarding the trials' results, 69 trials had been completed, while only 10 had available results on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions: Our study suggest that more AI trials are needed in emergency department and intensive care unit and sponsors are encouraged to report the results.

Requirements and reliability of AI in the medical context

The digital information age has been a catalyst in creating a renewed interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches, especially the subclass of computer algorithms that are popularly grouped into Machine Learning (ML). These methods have allowed one to go beyond limited human cognitive ability into understanding the complexity in the high dimensional data. Medical sciences have seen a steady use of these methods but have been slow in adoption to improve patient care. There are some significant impediments that have diluted this effort, which include availability of curated diverse data sets for model building, reliable human-level interpretation of these models, and reliable reproducibility of these methods for routine clinical use. Each of these aspects has several limiting conditions that need to be balanced out, considering the data/model building efforts, clinical implementation, integration cost to translational effort with minimal patient level harm, which may directly impact future clinical adoption. In this review paper, we will assess each aspect of the problem in the context of reliable use of the ML methods in oncology, as a representative study case, with the goal to safeguard utility and improve patient care in medicine in general.

Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Oncology: Towards the Establishment of Precision Medicine

In recent years, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have led to the rapid clinical implementation of devices with AI technology in the medical field. More than 60 AI-equipped medical devices have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, and the active introduction of AI technology is considered to be an inevitable trend in the future of medicine. In the field of oncology, clinical applications of medical devices using AI technology are already underway, mainly in radiology, and AI technology is expected to be positioned as an important core technology. In particular, "precision medicine," a medical treatment that selects the most appropriate treatment for each patient based on a vast amount of medical data such as genome information, has become a worldwide trend; AI technology is expected to be utilized in the process of extracting truly useful information from a large amount of medical data and applying it to diagnosis and treatment. In this review, we would like to introduce the history of AI technology and the current state of medical AI, especially in the oncology field, as well as discuss the possibilities and challenges of AI technology in the medical field.