Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Despite tremendous gains from deep learning and the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine to improve diagnosis and save costs, there exists a large translational gap to implement and use AI products in real-world clinical situations. Adoption of standards such as Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, and the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging is increasing to improve the peer-review process and reporting of AI tools. However, no such standards exist for product-level review.
Methods: A review of clinical trials showed a paucity of evidence for radiology AI products; thus, the authors developed a 10-question assessment tool for reviewing AI products with an emphasis on their validation and result dissemination. The assessment tool was applied to commercial and open-source algorithms used for diagnosis to extract evidence on the clinical utility of the tools.
Results: There is limited technical information on methodologies for FDA-approved algorithms compared with open-source products, likely because of intellectual property concerns. Furthermore, FDA-approved products use much smaller data sets compared with open-source AI tools, because the terms of use of public data sets are limited to academic and noncommercial entities, which precludes their use in commercial products.
Conclusions: Overall, this study reveals a broad spectrum of maturity and clinical use of AI products, but a large gap exists in exploring actual performance of AI tools in clinical practice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.08.018 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!