Ongoing and planned Randomized Controlled Trials of AI in medicine: An analysis of Clinicaltrials.gov registration data
andreoletti, m.; Senkalfa, B.; Blasimme, A.
Show abstract
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies into clinical practice holds significant promise for revolutionizing healthcare. However, the realization of this potential requires rigorous evaluation and validation of AI applications to ensure their safety, efficacy, and clinical significance. Despite increasing awareness of the need for robust testing, the majority of AI-related Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) so far have exhibited notable limitations, impeding the generalizability and proper integration of their findings into clinical settings. To understand whether the field is progressing towards more robust testing, we conducted an analysis of the registration data of ongoing and planned RCTs of AI in medicine available in the Clinicaltrials.gov database. Our analysis highlights several key trends and challenges. Effectively addressing these challenges is essential for advancing the field of medical AI and ensuring its successful integration into clinical practice.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 95%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 95%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Adoption of the OMOP CDM for Cancer Research using Real-world Data: Current Status and Opportunities 93%
- A Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trial Risk Assessment 93%
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers 92%
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 92%
- Mild Adverse Events of Sputnik V Vaccine Extracted from Russian Language Telegram Posts via BERT Deep Learning Model 90%
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Chatbots in Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: A Systematic Review 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
"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.