Search Results (2)

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are playing increasingly important roles, permeating the field of medical devices (MDs). This rapid progress has not yet been matched by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process, which still needs to define a common methodology for assessing AI/ML-based MDs. To collect existing evidence from the literature about the methods used to assess AI-based MDs, with a specific focus on those used for the management of heart failure (HF), the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) conducted a scoping meta-review. This manuscript presents the results of this search, which covered the period from January 1974 to October 2022. After careful independent screening, 21 reviews, mainly conducted in North America and Europe, were retained and included. Among the findings were that deep learning is the most commonly utilised method and that electronic health records and registries are among the most prevalent sources of data for AI/ML algorithms. Out of the 21 included reviews, 19 focused on risk prediction and/or the early diagnosis of HF. Furthermore, 10 reviews provided evidence of the impact on the incidence/progression of HF, and 13 on the length of stay. From an HTA perspective, the main areas requiring improvement are the quality assessment of studies on AI/ML (included in 11 out of 21 reviews) and their data sources, as well as the definition of the criteria used to assess the selection of the most appropriate AI/ML algorithm. Full article

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems could improve system efficiency by supporting clinicians in making appropriate referrals. However, they are imperfect by nature and misdiagnoses, if not correctly identified, can have consequences for patient care. In this paper, findings from an online survey are presented to understand the aptitude of GPs (n = 50) in appropriately trusting or not trusting the output of a fictitious AI-based decision support tool when assessing skin lesions, and to identify which individual characteristics could make GPs less prone to adhere to erroneous diagnostics results. The findings suggest that, when the AI was correct, the GPs’ ability to correctly diagnose a skin lesion significantly improved after receiving correct AI information, from 73.6% to 86.8% (X² (1, N = 50) = 21.787, p < 0.001), with significant effects for both the benign (X² (1, N = 50) = 21, p < 0.001) and malignant cases (X² (1, N = 50) = 4.654, p = 0.031). However, when the AI provided erroneous information, only 10% of the GPs were able to correctly disagree with the indication of the AI in terms of diagnosis (d-AIW M: 0.12, SD: 0.37), and only 14% of participants were able to correctly decide the management plan despite the AI insights (d-AIW M:0.12, SD: 0.32). The analysis of the difference between groups in terms of individual characteristics suggested that GPs with domain knowledge in dermatology were better at rejecting the wrong insights from AI. Full article