ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is giving rise to a revolution in medicine and health care. Mental health conditions are highly prevalent in many countries, and the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the risk of further erosion of the mental well-being in the population. Therefore, it is relevant to assess the current status of the application of AI toward mental health research to inform about trends, gaps, opportunities, and challenges. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to perform a systematic overview of AI applications in mental health in terms of methodologies, data, outcomes, performance, and quality. METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane databases was conducted to collect records of use cases of AI for mental health disorder studies from January 2016 to November 2021. Records were screened for eligibility if they were a practical implementation of AI in clinical trials involving mental health conditions. Records of AI study cases were evaluated and categorized by the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Data related to trial settings, collection methodology, features, outcomes, and model development and evaluation were extracted following the CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies) guideline. Further, evaluation of risk of bias is provided. RESULTS: A total of 429 nonduplicated records were retrieved from the databases and 129 were included for a full assessment-18 of which were manually added. The distribution of AI applications in mental health was found unbalanced between ICD-11 mental health categories. Predominant categories were Depressive disorders (n=70) and Schizophrenia or other primary psychotic disorders (n=26). Most interventions were based on randomized controlled trials (n=62), followed by prospective cohorts (n=24) among observational studies. AI was typically applied to evaluate quality of treatments (n=44) or stratify patients into subgroups and clusters (n=31). Models usually applied a combination of questionnaires and scales to assess symptom severity using electronic health records (n=49) as well as medical images (n=33). Quality assessment revealed important flaws in the process of AI application and data preprocessing pipelines. One-third of the studies (n=56) did not report any preprocessing or data preparation. One-fifth of the models were developed by comparing several methods (n=35) without assessing their suitability in advance and a small proportion reported external validation (n=21). Only 1 paper reported a second assessment of a previous AI model. Risk of bias and transparent reporting yielded low scores due to a poor reporting of the strategy for adjusting hyperparameters, coefficients, and the explainability of the models. International collaboration was anecdotal (n=17) and data and developed models mostly remained private (n=126). CONCLUSIONS: These significant shortcomings, alongside the lack of information to ensure reproducibility and transparency, are indicative of the challenges that AI in mental health needs to face before contributing to a solid base for knowledge generation and for being a support tool in mental health management.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence is fueling a new revolution in medicine and in the healthcare sector. Despite the growing evidence on the benefits of artificial intelligence there are several aspects that limit the measure of its impact in people's health. It is necessary to assess the current status on the application of AI towards the improvement of people's health in the domains defined by WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13) and the European Programme of Work (EPW), to inform about trends, gaps, opportunities, and challenges. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic overview of systematic reviews on the application of artificial intelligence in the people's health domains as defined in the GPW13 and provide a comprehensive and updated map on the application specialties of artificial intelligence in terms of methodologies, algorithms, data sources, outcomes, predictors, performance, and methodological quality. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and IEEEXplore was conducted between January 2015 and June 2021 to collect systematic reviews using a combination of keywords related to the domains of universal health coverage, health emergencies protection, and better health and wellbeing as defined by the WHO's PGW13 and EPW. Eligibility criteria was based on methodological quality and the inclusion of practical implementation of artificial intelligence. Records were classified and labeled using ICD-11 categories into the domains of the GPW13. Descriptors related to the area of implementation, type of modeling, data entities, outcomes and implementation on care delivery were extracted using a structured form and methodological aspects of the included reviews studies was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in the screening of 815 systematic reviews from which 203 were assessed for eligibility and 129 were included in the review. The most predominant domain for artificial intelligence applications was Universal Health Coverage (N = 98) followed by Health Emergencies (N = 16) and Better Health and Wellbeing (N = 15). Neoplasms area on Universal Health Coverage was the disease area featuring most of the applications (21.7 %, N = 28). The reviews featured analytics primarily over both public and private data sources (67.44 %, N = 87). The most used type of data was medical imaging (31.8 %, N = 41) and predictors based on regions of interest and clinical data. The most prominent subdomain of Artificial Intelligence was Machine Learning (43.4 %, N = 56), in which Support Vector Machine method was predominant (20.9 %, N = 27). Regarding the purpose, the application of Artificial Intelligence I is focused on the prediction of the diseases (36.4 %, N = 47). With respect to the validation, more than a half of the reviews (54.3 %, N = 70) did not report a validation procedure and, whenever available, the main performance indicator was the accuracy (28.7 %, N = 37). According to the methodological quality assessment, a third of the reviews (34.9 %, N = 45) implemented methods for analysis the risk of bias and the overall AMSTAR score below was 5 (4.01 ± 1.93) on all the included systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence is being used for disease modelling, diagnose, classification and prediction in the three domains of GPW13. However, the evidence is often limited to laboratory and the level of adoption is largely unbalanced between ICD-11 categoriesand diseases. Data availability is a determinant factor on the developmental stage of artificial intelligence applications. Most of the reviewed studies show a poor methodological quality and are at high risk of bias, which limits the reproducibility of the results and the reliability of translating these applications to real clinical scenarios. The analyzed papers show results only in laboratory and testing scenarios and not in clinical trials nor case studies, limiting the supporting evidence to transfer artificial intelligence to actual care delivery.
