No abstract

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) research in healthcare is accelerating rapidly, with potential applications being demonstrated across various domains of medicine. However, there are currently limited examples of such techniques being successfully deployed into clinical practice. This article explores the main challenges and limitations of AI in healthcare, and considers the steps required to translate these potentially transformative technologies from research to clinical practice.Main bodyKey challenges for the translation of AI systems in healthcare include those intrinsic to the science of machine learning, logistical difficulties in implementation, and consideration of the barriers to adoption as well as of the necessary sociocultural or pathway changes. Robust peer-reviewed clinical evaluation as part of randomised controlled trials should be viewed as the gold standard for evidence generation, but conducting these in practice may not always be appropriate or feasible. Performance metrics should aim to capture real clinical applicability and be understandable to intended users. Regulation that balances the pace of innovation with the potential for harm, alongside thoughtful post-market surveillance, is required to ensure that patients are not exposed to dangerous interventions nor deprived of access to beneficial innovations. Mechanisms to enable direct comparisons of AI systems must be developed, including the use of independent, local and representative test sets. Developers of AI algorithms must be vigilant to potential dangers, including dataset shift, accidental fitting of confounders, unintended discriminatory bias, the challenges of generalisation to new populations, and the unintended negative consequences of new algorithms on health outcomes.ConclusionThe safe and timely translation of AI research into clinically validated and appropriately regulated systems that can benefit everyone is challenging. Robust clinical evaluation, using metrics that are intuitive to clinicians and ideally go beyond measures of technical accuracy to include quality of care and patient outcomes, is essential. Further work is required (1) to identify themes of algorithmic bias and unfairness while developing mitigations to address these, (2) to reduce brittleness and improve generalisability, and (3) to develop methods for improved interpretability of machine learning predictions. If these goals can be achieved, the benefits for patients are likely to be transformational.

The Developing Human Connectome Project (dHCP) seeks to create the first 4-dimensional connectome of early life. Understanding this connectome in detail may provide insights into normal as well as abnormal patterns of brain development. Following established best practices adopted by the WU-MINN Human Connectome Project (HCP), and pioneered by FreeSurfer, the project utilises cortical surface-based processing pipelines. In this paper, we propose a fully automated processing pipeline for the structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the developing neonatal brain. This proposed pipeline * Corresponding author Email address: a.makropoulos11@imperial.ac.uk (Antonios Makropoulos) 1 These authors contributed equally Preprint submitted to NeuroImage January 7, 2018peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/125526 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Apr. 10, 2017; consists of a refined framework for cortical and sub-cortical volume segmentation, cortical surface extraction, and cortical surface inflation, which has been specifically designed to address considerable differences between adult and neonatal brains, as imaged using MRI. Using the proposed pipeline our results demonstrate that images collected from 465 subjects ranging from 28 to 45 weeks post-menstrual age (PMA) can be processed fully automatically; generating cortical surface models that are topologically correct, and correspond well with manual evaluations of tissue boundaries in 85% of cases. Results improve on state-of-the-art neonatal tissue segmentation models and significant errors were found in only 2% of cases, where these corresponded to subjects with high motion. Downstream, these surfaces will enhance comparisons of functional and diffusion MRI datasets, supporting the modelling of emerging patterns of brain connectivity.

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes. This Consensus Statement describes the methods used to identify and evaluate candidate items and gain consensus. In addition, it also provides the CONSORT-AI checklist, which includes the new extension items and their accompanying explanations. Methods The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI extensions were simultaneously developed for clinical trial protocols and trial reports. An announcement for the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI initiative was published in October 2019, 35 and the two guidelines were registered as reporting

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but the bar for clinical applications is high. Attempts to assess the clinical knowledge of models typically rely on automated evaluations based on limited benchmarks. Here, to address these limitations, we present MultiMedQA, a benchmark combining six existing medical question answering datasets spanning professional medicine, research and consumer queries and a new dataset of medical questions searched online, HealthSearchQA. We propose a human evaluation framework for model answers along multiple axes including factuality, comprehension, reasoning, possible harm and bias. In addition, we evaluate Pathways Language Model1 (PaLM, a 540-billion parameter LLM) and its instruction-tuned variant, Flan-PaLM2 on MultiMedQA. Using a combination of prompting strategies, Flan-PaLM achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on every MultiMedQA multiple-choice dataset (MedQA3, MedMCQA4, PubMedQA5 and Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) clinical topics6), including 67.6% accuracy on MedQA (US Medical Licensing Exam-style questions), surpassing the prior state of the art by more than 17%. However, human evaluation reveals key gaps. To resolve this, we introduce instruction prompt tuning, a parameter-efficient approach for aligning LLMs to new domains using a few exemplars. The resulting model, Med-PaLM, performs encouragingly, but remains inferior to clinicians. We show that comprehension, knowledge recall and reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning, suggesting the potential utility of LLMs in medicine. Our human evaluations reveal limitations of today’s models, reinforcing the importance of both evaluation frameworks and method development in creating safe, helpful LLMs for clinical applications.