The Role of AI Model Documentation in Translational Science: A Scoping Review

IF 1.9 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Interactive Journal of Medical Research Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI:10.1101/2023.01.21.23284858
T. Brereton, M. Malik, M. Lifson, J. D. Greenwood, K. Peterson, S. Overgaard
{"title":"The Role of AI Model Documentation in Translational Science: A Scoping Review","authors":"T. Brereton, M. Malik, M. Lifson, J. D. Greenwood, K. Peterson, S. Overgaard","doi":"10.1101/2023.01.21.23284858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Translation of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based medical modeling software (MMS) into clinical settings requires rigorous evaluation by interdisciplinary teams and across the AI lifecycle. The fragmented nature of available resources to support MMS documentation limits the transparent reporting of scientific evidence to support MMS, creating barriers and impeding the translation of software from code to bedside. Objective: The aim of this paper is to scope AI/ML-based MMS documentation practices and define the role of documentation in facilitating safe and ethical MMS translation into clinical workflows. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched using MeSH key concepts of AI/ML, ethical considerations, and explainability to identify publications detailing AI/ML-based MMS documentation, in addition to snowball sampling of selected reference lists. To include the possibility of implicit documentation practices not explicitly labeled as such, we did not use \"documentation\" as a key concept but rather as an inclusion criterion. A two-stage screening process (title and abstract screening and full-text review) was conducted by an independent reviewer. A data extraction template was utilized to record publication-related information, barriers to developing ethical and explainable MMS, available standards, regulations, frameworks, or governance strategies related to documentation, and recommendations for documentation for papers that met inclusion criteria. Results: Of the total 115 papers, 21 (18%) articles met the requirements for inclusion. Data regarding the current state and challenges of AI/ML-based documentation was synthesized and themes including bias, accountability, governance, and interpretability were identified. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that AI/ML-based MMS documentation practice is siloed across the AI life cycle and there exists a gray area for tracking and reporting of non-regulated MMS. Recommendations from the literature call for proactive evaluation, standards, frameworks, and transparency and traceability requirements to address ethical and explainability barriers, enhance documentation efforts, provide support throughout the AI lifecycle, and promote translation of MMS. If prioritized across multidisciplinary teams and across the AI lifecycle, AI/ML-based MMS documentation may serve as a method of coordinated communication and reporting toward resolution of AI translation barriers related to bias, accountability, governance, and interpretability.","PeriodicalId":51757,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.21.23284858","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Translation of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based medical modeling software (MMS) into clinical settings requires rigorous evaluation by interdisciplinary teams and across the AI lifecycle. The fragmented nature of available resources to support MMS documentation limits the transparent reporting of scientific evidence to support MMS, creating barriers and impeding the translation of software from code to bedside. Objective: The aim of this paper is to scope AI/ML-based MMS documentation practices and define the role of documentation in facilitating safe and ethical MMS translation into clinical workflows. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched using MeSH key concepts of AI/ML, ethical considerations, and explainability to identify publications detailing AI/ML-based MMS documentation, in addition to snowball sampling of selected reference lists. To include the possibility of implicit documentation practices not explicitly labeled as such, we did not use "documentation" as a key concept but rather as an inclusion criterion. A two-stage screening process (title and abstract screening and full-text review) was conducted by an independent reviewer. A data extraction template was utilized to record publication-related information, barriers to developing ethical and explainable MMS, available standards, regulations, frameworks, or governance strategies related to documentation, and recommendations for documentation for papers that met inclusion criteria. Results: Of the total 115 papers, 21 (18%) articles met the requirements for inclusion. Data regarding the current state and challenges of AI/ML-based documentation was synthesized and themes including bias, accountability, governance, and interpretability were identified. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that AI/ML-based MMS documentation practice is siloed across the AI life cycle and there exists a gray area for tracking and reporting of non-regulated MMS. Recommendations from the literature call for proactive evaluation, standards, frameworks, and transparency and traceability requirements to address ethical and explainability barriers, enhance documentation efforts, provide support throughout the AI lifecycle, and promote translation of MMS. If prioritized across multidisciplinary teams and across the AI lifecycle, AI/ML-based MMS documentation may serve as a method of coordinated communication and reporting toward resolution of AI translation barriers related to bias, accountability, governance, and interpretability.
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
人工智能模型文档在翻译科学中的作用:范围审查
背景:将基于人工智能/机器学习(AI/ML)的医学建模软件(MMS)转化为临床环境需要跨学科团队和整个人工智能生命周期进行严格评估。支持MMS文档的可用资源的分散性限制了支持MMS的科学证据的透明报告,造成了障碍,并阻碍了软件从代码到床边的翻译。目的:本文的目的是界定基于AI/ML的MMS文档实践,并定义文档在促进安全和合乎道德的MMS翻译到临床工作流程中的作用。方法:根据PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南进行范围界定审查。MEDLINE(PubMed)使用MeSH的AI/ML关键概念、伦理考虑和可解释性进行搜索,以确定详细说明基于AI/ML的MMS文档的出版物,以及所选参考文献列表的滚雪球抽样。为了包含未明确标记的隐含文档实践的可能性,我们没有将“文档”作为一个关键概念,而是将其作为一个包含标准。由一名独立评审员进行了两阶段筛选过程(标题和摘要筛选以及全文评审)。数据提取模板用于记录与出版物相关的信息、制定合乎道德和可解释的MMS的障碍、与文档相关的可用标准、法规、框架或治理策略,以及符合纳入标准的论文的文档建议。结果:在115篇论文中,21篇(18%)符合入选要求。综合了有关基于人工智能/机器学习的文档的现状和挑战的数据,并确定了包括偏见、问责制、治理和可解释性在内的主题。结论:我们的研究结果表明,基于AI/ML的MMS文档实践在整个AI生命周期中是孤立的,并且存在跟踪和报告非监管MMS的灰色地带。文献中的建议呼吁积极主动的评估、标准、框架以及透明度和可追溯性要求,以解决道德和可解释性障碍,加强文档工作,在整个人工智能生命周期中提供支持,并促进MMS的翻译。如果在多学科团队和人工智能生命周期中优先考虑,基于AI/ML的MMS文档可以作为一种协调沟通和报告的方法,以解决与偏见、问责制、治理和可解释性相关的人工智能翻译障碍。
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
Interactive Journal of Medical Research
Interactive Journal of Medical Research MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Obesity Prevention and Reduction in China Using the Social Media Platform WeChat: Scoping Review. Predicting Age-Related Hearing Loss in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Digital Health for Australia: Bridging the Rural, Regional, and Remote Health Gap. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Contraceptive Services at Selected Primary Health Care Facilities in India, Nigeria, and Tanzania: Cross-Sectional Study. Streamlining Ophthalmic Documentation With Anonymized, Fine-Tuned Language Models: Feasibility Study.
×
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