he prospect of improved clinical outcomes and more efficient health systems has fueled a rapid rise in the development and evaluation of AI systems over the last decade. Because most AI systems within healthcare are complex interventions designed as clinical decision support systems, rather than autonomous agents, the interactions among the AI systems, their users and the implementation environments are defining components of the AI interventions' overall potential effectiveness. Therefore, bringing AI systems from mathematical performance to clinical utility needs an adapted, stepwise implementation and evaluation pathway, addressing the complexity of this collaboration between two independent forms of intelligence, beyond measures of effectiveness alone 1 . Despite indications that some AI-based algorithms now match the accuracy of human experts within preclinical in silico studies 2 , there
The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent 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 their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-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 will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.
Purpose: To determine if deep learning networks could be trained to forecast a future 24-2 Humphrey Visual Field (HVF).Design: Retrospective database study.Participants: All patients who obtained a HVF 24-2 at the University of Washington.Methods: All datapoints from consecutive 24-2 HVFs from 1998 to 2018 were extracted from a University of Washington database. Ten-fold cross validation with a held out test set was used to develop the three main phases of model development: model architecture selection, dataset combination selection, and time-interval model training with transfer learning, to train a deep learning artificial neural network capable of generating a point-wise visual field prediction. Main outcome measures: Mean absolute error (MAE) and difference in Mean Deviation (MD) between predicted and actual future HVF.Results: More than 1.7 million perimetry points were extracted to the hundredth decibel from 32,443 24-2 HVFs. The best performing model with 20 million trainable parameters, CascadeNet-5, was selected. The overall MAE for the test set was 2.47 dB (95% CI: 2.45 dB to 2.48 dB). The 100 fully trained models were able to successfully predict progressive field loss in glaucomatous eyes up to 5.5 years in the future with a correlation of 0.92 between the MD of predicted and actual future HVF (p < 2.2 x 10 -16 ) and an average difference of 0.41 dB.Conclusions: Using unfiltered real-world datasets, deep learning networks show an impressive ability to not only learn spatio-temporal HVF changes but also to generate predictions for future HVFs up to 5.5 years, given only a single HVF.
A genetic contribution to refractive error has been confirmed by the discovery of more than 150 associated variants in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Environmental factors such as education and time outdoors also demonstrate strong associations. Currently however, the extent of gene-environment or gene-gene interactions in myopia is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that refractive error-associated variants exhibit effect size heterogeneity, a hallmark feature of genetic interactions. Of 146 variants tested, evidence of non-uniform, non-linear effects were observed for 66 (45%) at Bonferroni-corrected significance ( P < 1.1 × 10 −4 ) and 128 (88%) at nominal significance ( P < 0.05). LAMA2 variant rs12193446, for example, had an effect size varying from −0.20 diopters (95% CI −0.18 to −0.23) to −0.89 diopters (95% CI −0.71 to −1.07) in different individuals. SNP effects were strongest at the phenotype extremes and weaker in emmetropes. A parsimonious explanation for these findings is that gene-environment or gene-gene interactions in myopia are pervasive.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.