Back

Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating AI in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Evaluation

Han, R.; Acosta, J. N.; Shakeri, Z.; Ioannidis, J.; Topol, E.; Rajpurkar, P.

2023-09-13 health informatics
10.1101/2023.09.12.23295381 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool in healthcare, with numerous studies indicating its potential to perform as well or better than clinicians. However, a considerable portion of these AI models have only been tested retrospectively, raising concerns about their true effectiveness and potential risks in real-world clinical settings. MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving AI algorithms used in various clinical practice fields and locations, published between January 1, 2018, and August 18, 2023. Our study included 84 trials and focused specifically on evaluating intervention characteristics, study endpoints, and trial outcomes, including the potential of AI to improve care management, patient behavior and symptoms, and clinical decision-making. ResultsOur analysis revealed that 82{middle dot}1% (69/84) of trials reported positive results for their primary endpoint, highlighting AIs potential to enhance various aspects of healthcare. Trials predominantly evaluated deep learning systems for medical imaging and were conducted in single-center settings. The US and China had the most trials, with gastroenterology being the most common field of study. However, we also identified areas requiring further research, such as multi-center trials and diverse outcome measures, to better understand AIs true impact and limitations in healthcare. ConclusionThe existing landscape of RCTs on AI in clinical practice demonstrates an expanding interest in applying AI across a range of fields and locations. While most trials report positive outcomes, more comprehensive research, including multi-center trials and diverse outcome measures, is essential to fully understand AIs impact and limitations in healthcare.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.