Preliminary External Validation Results of the Artificial Intelligence-Based Headache Diagnostic Model: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Life Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.3390/life14060744
Mariko Okada, Masahito Katsuki, Tomokazu Shimazu, Takao Takeshima, T. Mitsufuji, Yasuo Ito, Katsumi Ohbayashi, Noboru Imai, Junichi Miyahara, Y. Matsumori, Yoshihiko Nakazato, Kazuki Fujita, Eri Hoshino, Toshimasa Yamamoto
{"title":"Preliminary External Validation Results of the Artificial Intelligence-Based Headache Diagnostic Model: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study","authors":"Mariko Okada, Masahito Katsuki, Tomokazu Shimazu, Takao Takeshima, T. Mitsufuji, Yasuo Ito, Katsumi Ohbayashi, Noboru Imai, Junichi Miyahara, Y. Matsumori, Yoshihiko Nakazato, Kazuki Fujita, Eri Hoshino, Toshimasa Yamamoto","doi":"10.3390/life14060744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The misdiagnosis of headache disorders is a serious issue, and AI-based headache model diagnoses with external validation are scarce. We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based headache diagnosis model using a database of 4000 patients’ questionnaires in a headache-specializing clinic and herein performed external validation prospectively. The validation cohort of 59 headache patients was prospectively collected from August 2023 to February 2024 at our or collaborating multicenter institutions. The ground truth was specialists’ diagnoses based on the initial questionnaire and at least a one-month headache diary after the initial consultation. The diagnostic performance of the AI model was evaluated. The mean age was 42.55 ± 12.74 years, and 51/59 (86.67%) of the patients were female. No missing values were reported. Of the 59 patients, 56 (89.83%) had migraines or medication-overuse headaches, and 3 (5.08%) had tension-type headaches. No one had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias or other headaches. The models’ overall accuracy and kappa for the ground truth were 94.92% and 0.65 (95%CI 0.21–1.00), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F values for migraines were 98.21%, 66.67%, 98.21%, and 98.21%, respectively. There was disagreement between the AI diagnosis and the ground truth by headache specialists in two patients. This is the first external validation of the AI headache diagnosis model. Further data collection and external validation are required to strengthen and improve its performance in real-world settings.","PeriodicalId":18182,"journal":{"name":"Life","volume":"85 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/life14060744","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 misdiagnosis of headache disorders is a serious issue, and AI-based headache model diagnoses with external validation are scarce. We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based headache diagnosis model using a database of 4000 patients’ questionnaires in a headache-specializing clinic and herein performed external validation prospectively. The validation cohort of 59 headache patients was prospectively collected from August 2023 to February 2024 at our or collaborating multicenter institutions. The ground truth was specialists’ diagnoses based on the initial questionnaire and at least a one-month headache diary after the initial consultation. The diagnostic performance of the AI model was evaluated. The mean age was 42.55 ± 12.74 years, and 51/59 (86.67%) of the patients were female. No missing values were reported. Of the 59 patients, 56 (89.83%) had migraines or medication-overuse headaches, and 3 (5.08%) had tension-type headaches. No one had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias or other headaches. The models’ overall accuracy and kappa for the ground truth were 94.92% and 0.65 (95%CI 0.21–1.00), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F values for migraines were 98.21%, 66.67%, 98.21%, and 98.21%, respectively. There was disagreement between the AI diagnosis and the ground truth by headache specialists in two patients. This is the first external validation of the AI headache diagnosis model. Further data collection and external validation are required to strengthen and improve its performance in real-world settings.
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
基于人工智能的头痛诊断模型的初步外部验证结果:多中心前瞻性观察研究
头痛疾病的误诊是一个严重的问题,基于人工智能的头痛诊断模型很少经过外部验证。此前,我们利用一家头痛专科诊所的 4000 份患者问卷数据库开发了基于人工智能(AI)的头痛诊断模型,并在此进行了前瞻性的外部验证。从 2023 年 8 月到 2024 年 2 月,我们或合作的多中心机构前瞻性地收集了 59 名头痛患者的验证队列。基本事实是专家根据最初的调查问卷和首次会诊后至少一个月的头痛日记做出的诊断。对人工智能模型的诊断性能进行了评估。平均年龄为(42.55 ± 12.74)岁,51/59(86.67%)名患者为女性。无缺失值报告。59 名患者中,56 人(89.83%)患有偏头痛或药物滥用性头痛,3 人(5.08%)患有紧张型头痛。没有人患有三叉神经自律性头痛或其他头痛。模型的总体准确率和地面实况卡帕值分别为 94.92% 和 0.65(95%CI 0.21-1.00)。偏头痛的灵敏度、特异性、精确度和 F 值分别为 98.21%、66.67%、98.21% 和 98.21%。有两名患者的人工智能诊断结果与头痛专家的基本事实不一致。这是人工智能头痛诊断模型的首次外部验证。需要进一步收集数据并进行外部验证,以加强和提高其在真实世界环境中的表现。
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
Personalized Management of Patients with Proliferative Diabetic Vitreoretinopathy Congenital Pulmonary Airway Malformation in Preterm Infants: A Case Report and Review of the Literature Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Recent Update on Pathophysiology and Treatment Effect of FluoRoquinolones on Aortic Growth, aortic stIffness and wave refLEctionS (FRAGILES study) Leveraging Electronic Health Records to Predict the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
×
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