Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) care by leveraging the large-scale, high-dimensional data that are generated by NICU patients. There is an emerging recognition that the confluence of technological progress, commercialization pathways, and rich data sets provides a unique opportunity for AI to make a lasting impact on the NICU. In this perspective article, we discuss four broad categories of AI applications in the NICU: imaging interpretation, prediction modeling of electronic health record data, integration of real-time monitoring data, and documentation and billing. By enhancing decision-making, streamlining processes, and improving patient outcomes, AI holds the potential to transform the quality of care for vulnerable newborns, making the excitement surrounding AI advancements well-founded and the potential for significant positive change stronger than ever before., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Introduction: Artificial intelligence based on machine learning has made large advancements in many fields of science and medicine but its impact on pharmacovigilance is yet unclear., Objective: The present study conducted a scoping review of the use of artificial intelligence based on machine learning to understand how it is used for pharmacovigilance tasks, characterize differences with other fields, and identify opportunities to improve pharmacovigilance through the use of machine learning., Design: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases were searched to identify articles pertaining to the use of machine learning in pharmacovigilance published from the year 2000 to September 2021. After manual screening of 7744 abstracts, a total of 393 papers met the inclusion criteria for further analysis. Extraction of key data on study design, data sources, sample size, and machine learning methodology was performed. Studies with the characteristics of good machine learning practice were defined and manual review focused on identifying studies that fulfilled these criteria and results that showed promise., Results: The majority of studies (53%) were focused on detecting safety signals using traditional statistical methods. Of the studies that used more recent machine learning methods, 61% used off-the-shelf techniques with minor modifications. Temporal analysis revealed that newer methods such as deep learning have shown increased use in recent years. We found only 42 studies (10%) that reflect current best practices and trends in machine learning. In the subset of 154 papers that focused on data intake and ingestion, 30 (19%) were found to incorporate the same best practices., Conclusion: Advances from artificial intelligence have yet to fully penetrate pharmacovigilance, although recent studies show signs that this may be changing., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

The black-box nature of current artificial intelligence (AI) has caused some to question whether AI must be explainable to be used in high-stakes scenarios such as medicine. It has been argued that explainable AI will engender trust with the health-care workforce, provide transparency into the AI decision making process, and potentially mitigate various kinds of bias. In this Viewpoint, we argue that this argument represents a false hope for explainable AI and that current explainability methods are unlikely to achieve these goals for patient-level decision support. We provide an overview of current explainability techniques and highlight how various failure cases can cause problems for decision making for individual patients. In the absence of suitable explainability methods, we advocate for rigorous internal and external validation of AI models as a more direct means of achieving the goals often associated with explainability, and we caution against having explainability be a requirement for clinically deployed models., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model of Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) were both published to improve the reporting and critical appraisal of prediction model studies for diagnosis and prognosis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop an extension to the TRIPOD statement (TRIPOD-artificial intelligence, AI) and the PROBAST (PROBAST-AI) tool for prediction model studies that applied machine learning techniques., Methods and Analysis: TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI will be developed following published guidance from the EQUATOR Network, and will comprise five stages. Stage 1 will comprise two systematic reviews (across all medical fields and specifically in oncology) to examine the quality of reporting in published machine-learning-based prediction model studies. In stage 2, we will consult a diverse group of key stakeholders using a Delphi process to identify items to be considered for inclusion in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 3 will be virtual consensus meetings to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI. Stage 4 will involve developing the TRIPOD-AI checklist and the PROBAST-AI tool, and writing the accompanying explanation and elaboration papers. In the final stage, stage 5, we will disseminate TRIPOD-AI and PROBAST-AI via journals, conferences, blogs, websites (including TRIPOD, PROBAST and EQUATOR Network) and social media. TRIPOD-AI will provide researchers working on prediction model studies based on machine learning with a reporting guideline that can help them report key details that readers need to evaluate the study quality and interpret its findings, potentially reducing research waste. We anticipate PROBAST-AI will help researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers and policymakers critically appraise the design, conduct and analysis of machine learning based prediction model studies, with a robust standardised tool for bias evaluation., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the Central University Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford on 10-December-2020 (R73034/RE001). Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-review publications., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019140361 and CRD42019161764., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually changing medical practice. With recent progress in digitized data acquisition, machine learning and computing infrastructure, AI applications are expanding into areas that were previously thought to be only the province of human experts. In this Review Article, we outline recent breakthroughs in AI technologies and their biomedical applications, identify the challenges for further progress in medical AI systems, and summarize the economic, legal and social implications of AI in healthcare.

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. The CONSORT-AI extension was developed to provide specific guidance for randomised controlled trials involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) interventions. Here, the authors show that since publication of CONSORT-AI, several AI-specific considerations remain systematically underreported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This correction notice is for an article titled "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines" published in Nature Communications. The correction adds the names of two authors, Carrie D. Llewellyn and Richard O. de Visser, who were originally omitted from the author list. It also includes their affiliations and contributions to the article. The correction has been made to both the PDF and HTML versions of the article. [Extracted from the article]