Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Artificial Intelligence Applications for COVID-19 in Intensive Care and Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review
Marcel Lucas Chee; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Fahad Javaid Siddiqui; Zhongheng Zhang; Shir Lynn Lim; Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Nan Liu.
Afiliação
  • Marcel Lucas Chee; Monash University
  • Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Duke-NUS Medical School
  • Fahad Javaid Siddiqui; Duke-NUS Medical School
  • Zhongheng Zhang; Zhejiang University
  • Shir Lynn Lim; National University Heart Centre
  • Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Singapore General Hospital
  • Nan Liu; Duke-NUS Medical School
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21251727
Artigo de periódico
Um artigo publicado em periódico científico está disponível e provavelmente é baseado neste preprint, por meio do reconhecimento de similaridade realizado por uma máquina. A confirmação humana ainda está pendente.
Ver artigo de periódico
ABSTRACT
BackgroundLittle is known about the role of artificial intelligence (AI) as a decisive technology in the clinical management of COVID-19 patients. We aimed to systematically review and critically appraise the current evidence on AI applications for COVID-19 in intensive care and emergency settings, focusing on methods, reporting standards, and clinical utility. MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library databases from inception to 1 October 2020, without language restrictions. We included peer-reviewed original studies that applied AI for COVID-19 patients, healthcare workers, or health systems in intensive care, emergency or prehospital settings. We assessed predictive modelling studies using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) and a modified TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) statement for AI. We critically appraised the methodology and key findings of all other studies. ResultsOf fourteen eligible studies, eleven developed prognostic or diagnostic AI predictive models, all of which were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Common pitfalls included inadequate sample sizes, poor handling of missing data, failure to account for censored participants, and weak validation of models. Studies had low adherence to reporting guidelines, with particularly poor reporting on model calibration and blinding of outcome and predictor assessment. Of the remaining three studies, two evaluated the prognostic utility of deep learning-based lung segmentation software and one studied an AI-based system for resource optimisation in the ICU. These studies had similar issues in methodology, validation, and reporting. ConclusionsCurrent AI applications for COVID-19 are not ready for deployment in acute care settings, given their limited scope and poor quality. Our findings underscore the need for improvements to facilitate safe and effective clinical adoption of AI applications, for and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Licença
cc_by
Texto completo: Disponível Coleções: Preprints Base de dados: medRxiv Tipo de estudo: Experimental_studies / Estudo prognóstico / Review / Revisão sistemática Idioma: Inglês Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Preprint
Texto completo: Disponível Coleções: Preprints Base de dados: medRxiv Tipo de estudo: Experimental_studies / Estudo prognóstico / Review / Revisão sistemática Idioma: Inglês Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Preprint
...