Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.
Tagliaferri, Scott D; Angelova, Maia; Zhao, Xiaohui; Owen, Patrick J; Miller, Clint T; Wilkin, Tim; Belavy, Daniel L.
Afiliação
  • Tagliaferri SD; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC Australia.
  • Angelova M; School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC Australia.
  • Zhao X; Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology, Beilin, Xi'an China.
  • Owen PJ; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC Australia.
  • Miller CT; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC Australia.
  • Wilkin T; School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC Australia.
  • Belavy DL; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC Australia.
NPJ Digit Med ; 3: 93, 2020.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32665978
ABSTRACT
Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following

aims:

(a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: NPJ Digit Med Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: NPJ Digit Med Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article