Artificial intelligence in clinical medicine: a state-of-the-art overview of systematic reviews with methodological recommendations for improved reporting.

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2025-03-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1550731
Giovanni Morone, Luigi De Angelis, Alex Martino Cinnera, Riccardo Carbonetti, Alessio Bisirri, Irene Ciancarelli, Marco Iosa, Stefano Negrini, Carlotte Kiekens, Francesco Negrini
{"title":"Artificial intelligence in clinical medicine: a state-of-the-art overview of systematic reviews with methodological recommendations for improved reporting.","authors":"Giovanni Morone, Luigi De Angelis, Alex Martino Cinnera, Riccardo Carbonetti, Alessio Bisirri, Irene Ciancarelli, Marco Iosa, Stefano Negrini, Carlotte Kiekens, Francesco Negrini","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2025.1550731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medicine has become increasingly receptive to the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to categorise current evidence about it and identify the current methodological state of the art in the field proposing a classification of AI model (CLASMOD-AI) to improve future reporting. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Epistemonikos databases were screened by four blinded reviewers and all SRs that investigated AI tools in clinical medicine were included. 1923 articles were found, and of these, 360 articles were examined via the full-text and 161 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The search strategy, methodological, medical and risk of bias information were extracted. The CLASMOD-AI was based on input, model, data training, and performance metric of AI tools. A considerable increase in the number of SRs was observed in the last five years. The most covered field was oncology accounting for 13.9% of the SRs, with diagnosis as the predominant objective in 44.4% of the cases). The risk of bias was assessed in 49.1% of included SRs, yet only 39.2% of these used tools with specific items to assess AI metrics. This overview highlights the need for improved reporting on AI metrics, particularly regarding the training of AI models and dataset quality, as both are essential for a comprehensive quality assessment and for mitigating the risk of bias using specialized evaluation tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"7 ","pages":"1550731"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920125/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1550731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medicine has become increasingly receptive to the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This overview of systematic reviews (SRs) aims to categorise current evidence about it and identify the current methodological state of the art in the field proposing a classification of AI model (CLASMOD-AI) to improve future reporting. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Epistemonikos databases were screened by four blinded reviewers and all SRs that investigated AI tools in clinical medicine were included. 1923 articles were found, and of these, 360 articles were examined via the full-text and 161 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The search strategy, methodological, medical and risk of bias information were extracted. The CLASMOD-AI was based on input, model, data training, and performance metric of AI tools. A considerable increase in the number of SRs was observed in the last five years. The most covered field was oncology accounting for 13.9% of the SRs, with diagnosis as the predominant objective in 44.4% of the cases). The risk of bias was assessed in 49.1% of included SRs, yet only 39.2% of these used tools with specific items to assess AI metrics. This overview highlights the need for improved reporting on AI metrics, particularly regarding the training of AI models and dataset quality, as both are essential for a comprehensive quality assessment and for mitigating the risk of bias using specialized evaluation tools.

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
临床医学中的人工智能:最先进的系统评价综述和改进报告的方法学建议。
医学对人工智能(AI)的使用越来越乐于接受。本系统综述(SR)旨在对当前有关人工智能的证据进行分类,并确定该领域当前的方法论现状,同时提出一个人工智能分类模型(CLASMOD-AI),以改进未来的报告。四名盲审员对 PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE 和 Epistemonikos 数据库进行了筛选,并纳入了所有研究临床医学中人工智能工具的 SR。共找到 1923 篇文章,其中 360 篇文章通过全文检索,161 篇 SR 符合纳入标准。提取了检索策略、方法学、医学和偏倚风险信息。CLASMOD-AI 基于人工智能工具的输入、模型、数据训练和性能指标。在过去五年中,研究报告的数量大幅增加。涉及最多的领域是肿瘤学,占工作人员代表总数的 13.9%,44.4%的案例以诊断为主要目标)。49.1%的样本报告对偏倚风险进行了评估,但其中只有39.2%的报告使用了带有特定项目的工具来评估人工智能指标。本综述强调了改进人工智能指标报告的必要性,特别是有关人工智能模型训练和数据集质量的报告,因为这两项指标对于全面质量评估和使用专门评估工具降低偏倚风险至关重要。
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
MATRIX: Mental heAlth diagnostics Through Real time Intelligent unified X-AI attribution reasoning. Operationalizing trustworthy artificial intelligence in clinical and operational workflows. Request-response characteristics and public satisfaction with using a health hotline. Accelerating digital innovation in clinical neuropsychology: simulation approach to support medical device certification. Digital eye health and behavioral determinants of screen use among university students in the UAE.
×
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:604180095
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