Application of comprehensive evaluation framework to Coronavirus Disease 19 studies: A systematic review of translational aspects of artificial intelligence in health care
Casey, A. E.; Ansari, S.; Nakisa, B.; Kelly, B.; Brown, P.; Cooper, P.; Muhammad, I.; Livingstone, S.; Reddy, S.; Makinen, V.-P. E.
Show abstract
BackgroundDespite immense progress in artificial intelligence (AI) models, there has been limited deployment in healthcare environments. The gap between potential and actual AI applications is likely due to the lack of translatability between controlled research environments (where these models are developed) and clinical environments for which the AI tools are ultimately intended. ObjectiveWe have previously developed the Translational Evaluation of Healthcare AI (TEHAI) framework to assess the translational value of AI models and to support successful transition to healthcare environments. In this study, we apply the TEHAI to COVID-19 literature in order to assess how well translational topics are covered. MethodsA systematic literature search for COVID-AI studies published between December 2019-2020 resulted in 3,830 records. A subset of 102 papers that passed inclusion criteria were sampled for full review. Nine reviewers assessed the papers for translational value and collected descriptive data (each study was assessed by two reviewers). Evaluation scores and extracted data were compared by a third reviewer for resolution of discrepancies. The review process was conducted on the Covidence software platform. ResultsWe observed a significant trend for studies to attain high scores for technical capability but low scores for the areas essential for clinical translatability. Specific questions regarding external model validation, safety, non-maleficence and service adoption received failed scores in most studies. ConclusionsUsing TEHAI, we identified notable gaps in how well translational topics of AI models are covered in the COVID-19 clinical sphere. These gaps in areas crucial for clinical translatability could, and should, be considered already at the model development stage to increase translatability into real COVID-19 healthcare environments.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 96%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 95%
- A Scoping Review Protocol on Integration of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in community-based healthcare: User Experience 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review 96%
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 96%
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Adoption of the OMOP CDM for Cancer Research using Real-world Data: Current Status and Opportunities 94%
- Understanding digital health technology implementation in rehabilitation: Development of the Rehabilitation Technologies Implementation model 93%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 95%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials with a Trial-specific Patient Decision Aid (tPDA): A Development and Usability Study 94%
- How the COVID-19 pandemic is favoring the adoption of digital technologies in healthcare: a literature review 93%
- Understanding how the design and implementation of Online Consultations influence primary care outcomes: Systematic review of evidence with recommendations for designers, providers, and researchers 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.