Prospective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for use in cancer pathways following diagnosis: a systematic review

Sheba Macheka, Peng Yun Ng, Ophira Ginsburg, Andrew Hope, Richard Sullivan, Ajay Aggarwal
{"title":"Prospective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for use in cancer pathways following diagnosis: a systematic review","authors":"Sheba Macheka, Peng Yun Ng, Ophira Ginsburg, Andrew Hope, Richard Sullivan, Ajay Aggarwal","doi":"10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cancer care has evolved in the face of ageing population, workforce shortages and technological advancement. Despite recent uptake in AI research and adoption, the extent to which it improves quality, efficiency and equity of care beyond cancer diagnostics is uncertain to date. Henceforth, the objective of our systematic review is to assess the clinical readiness and deployability of AI through evaluation of prospective studies of AI in cancer care following diagnosis.We undertook a systematic review to determine the types of AI involved and their respective outcomes. A PubMed and Web of Science search between 1 January 2013 and 1 May 2023 identified 15 articles detailing prospective evaluation of AI in postdiagnostic cancer pathway. We appraised all studies using Risk of Bias Assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials and Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions quality assessment tools, as well as implementational analysis concerning time, cost and resource, to ascertain the quality of clinical evidence and real-world feasibility of AI.The results revealed that the majority of AI oncological research remained experimental without prospective clinical validation or deployment. Most studies failed to establish clinical validity and to translate measured AI efficacy into beneficial clinical outcomes. AI research are limited by lack of research standardisation and health system interoperability. Furthermore, implementational analysis and equity considerations of AI were largely missing.To overcome the triad of low-level clinical evidence, efficacy-outcome gap and incompatible research ecosystem for AI, future work should focus on multicollaborative AI implementation research designed and conducted in accordance with up-to-date research standards and local health systems.","PeriodicalId":72436,"journal":{"name":"BMJ oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cancer care has evolved in the face of ageing population, workforce shortages and technological advancement. Despite recent uptake in AI research and adoption, the extent to which it improves quality, efficiency and equity of care beyond cancer diagnostics is uncertain to date. Henceforth, the objective of our systematic review is to assess the clinical readiness and deployability of AI through evaluation of prospective studies of AI in cancer care following diagnosis.We undertook a systematic review to determine the types of AI involved and their respective outcomes. A PubMed and Web of Science search between 1 January 2013 and 1 May 2023 identified 15 articles detailing prospective evaluation of AI in postdiagnostic cancer pathway. We appraised all studies using Risk of Bias Assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials and Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions quality assessment tools, as well as implementational analysis concerning time, cost and resource, to ascertain the quality of clinical evidence and real-world feasibility of AI.The results revealed that the majority of AI oncological research remained experimental without prospective clinical validation or deployment. Most studies failed to establish clinical validity and to translate measured AI efficacy into beneficial clinical outcomes. AI research are limited by lack of research standardisation and health system interoperability. Furthermore, implementational analysis and equity considerations of AI were largely missing.To overcome the triad of low-level clinical evidence, efficacy-outcome gap and incompatible research ecosystem for AI, future work should focus on multicollaborative AI implementation research designed and conducted in accordance with up-to-date research standards and local health systems.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前瞻性评估人工智能(AI)应用在癌症诊断后的使用路径:系统性综述
面对人口老龄化、劳动力短缺和技术进步,人工智能(AI)在癌症治疗中的作用也在不断发展。尽管近年来人工智能的研究和应用不断增加,但其在癌症诊断之外提高医疗质量、效率和公平性的程度至今仍不确定。因此,我们的系统性综述旨在通过评估人工智能在癌症诊断后护理中的前瞻性研究,来评估人工智能的临床准备情况和可部署性。通过对 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 5 月 1 日期间的 PubMed 和 Web of Science 进行搜索,我们发现了 15 篇文章,这些文章详细介绍了对诊断后癌症治疗路径中人工智能的前瞻性评估。我们使用随机对照试验的偏倚风险评估和非随机干预研究的偏倚风险评估工具对所有研究进行了评估,并对时间、成本和资源进行了实施分析,以确定人工智能的临床证据质量和实际可行性。大多数研究未能确立临床有效性,也未能将人工智能的疗效转化为有益的临床结果。缺乏研究标准化和医疗系统互操作性限制了人工智能研究。为了克服人工智能研究中存在的低水平临床证据、疗效-结果差距和不兼容的研究生态系统这三重问题,未来的工作重点应放在根据最新研究标准和当地医疗系统设计和开展的多方合作人工智能实施研究上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology Potential of neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio as a new prognostic tool for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line immuno-oncology combinations Does the regional use of intensive chemotherapy impact the outcome of adults with AML? Regional disparities in the use of intensive chemotherapy for AML in the Netherlands: does it influence survival? Research priorities to improve cancer care for people with intellectual disabilities across the cancer continuum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1