Model-Informed Precision Dosing: Background, Requirements, Validation, Implementation, and Forward Trajectory of Individualizing Drug Therapy.

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) has become synonymous with modern approaches for individualizing drug therapy, in which the characteristics of each patient are considered as opposed to applying a one-size-fits-all alternative. This review provides a brief account of the current knowledge, practices, and opinions on MIPD while defining an achievable vision for MIPD in clinical care based on available evidence. We begin with a historical perspective on variability in dose requirements and then discuss technical aspects of MIPD, including the need for clinical decision support tools, practical validation, and implementation of MIPD in health care. We also discuss novel ways to characterize patient variability beyond the common perceptions of genetic control. Finally, we address current debates on MIPD from the perspectives of the new drug development, health economics, and drug regulations.

Standardizing digital biobanks: integrating imaging, genomic, and clinical data for precision medicine.

Advancements in data acquisition and computational methods are generating a large amount of heterogeneous biomedical data from diagnostic domains such as clinical imaging, pathology, and next-generation sequencing (NGS), which help characterize individual differences in patients. However, this information needs to be available and suitable to promote and support scientific research and technological development, supporting the effective adoption of the precision medicine approach in clinical practice. Digital biobanks can catalyze this process, facilitating the sharing of curated and standardized imaging data, clinical, pathological and molecular data, crucial to enable the development of a comprehensive and personalized data-driven diagnostic approach in disease management and fostering the development of computational predictive models. This work aims to frame this perspective, first by evaluating the state of standardization of individual diagnostic domains and then by identifying challenges and proposing a possible solution towards an integrative approach that can guarantee the suitability of information that can be shared through a digital biobank. Our analysis of the state of the art shows the presence and use of reference standards in biobanks and, generally, digital repositories for each specific domain. Despite this, standardization to guarantee the integration and reproducibility of the numerical descriptors generated by each domain, e.g. radiomic, pathomic and -omic features, is still an open challenge. Based on specific use cases and scenarios, an integration model, based on the JSON format, is proposed that can help address this problem. Ultimately, this work shows how, with specific standardization and promotion efforts, the digital biobank model can become an enabling technology for the comprehensive study of diseases and the effective development of data-driven technologies at the service of precision medicine.

Moonshot. Long shot. Or sure shot. What needs to happen to realize the full potential of AI in the fertility sector?

Quality healthcare requires two critical components: patients' best interests and best decisions to achieve that goal. The first goal is the lodestar, unchanged and unchanging over time. The second component is a more dynamic and rapidly changing paradigm in healthcare. Clinical decision-making has transitioned from an opinion-based paradigm to an evidence-based and data-driven process. A realization that technology and artificial intelligence can bring value adds a third component to the decision process. And the fertility sector is not exempt. The debate about AI is front and centre in reproductive technologies. Launching the transition from a conventional provider-driven decision paradigm to a software-enhanced system requires a roadmap to enable effective and safe implementation. A key nodal point in the ascending arc of AI in the fertility sector is how and when to bring these innovations into the ART routine to improve workflow, outcomes, and bottom-line performance. The evolution of AI in other segments of clinical care would suggest that caution is needed as widespread adoption is urged from several fronts. But the lure and magnitude for the change that these tech tools hold for fertility care remain deeply engaging. Exploring factors that could enhance thoughtful implementation and progress towards a tipping point (or perhaps not) should be at the forefront of any 'next steps' strategy. The objective of this Opinion is to discuss four critical areas (among many) considered essential to successful uptake of any new technology. These four areas include value proposition, innovative disruption, clinical agency, and responsible computing.

Trust and stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of AI tools in clinical radiology.

OBJECTIVES: To define requirements that condition trust in artificial intelligence (AI) as clinical decision support in radiology from the perspective of various stakeholders and to explore ways to fulfil these requirements. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-five respondents-nineteen directly involved in the development, implementation, or use of AI applications in radiology and six working with AI in other areas of healthcare. We designed the questions to explore three themes: development and use of AI, professional decision-making, and management and organizational procedures connected to AI. The transcribed interviews were analysed in an iterative coding process from open coding to theoretically informed thematic coding. RESULTS: We identified four aspects of trust that relate to reliability, transparency, quality verification, and inter-organizational compatibility. These aspects fall under the categories of substantial and procedural requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Development of appropriate levels of trust in AI in healthcare is complex and encompasses multiple dimensions of requirements. Various stakeholders will have to be involved in developing AI solutions for healthcare and radiology to fulfil these requirements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For AI to achieve advances in radiology, it must be given the opportunity to support, rather than replace, human expertise. Support requires trust. Identification of aspects and conditions for trust allows developing AI implementation strategies that facilitate advancing the field. KEY POINTS: • Dimensions of procedural and substantial demands that need to be fulfilled to foster appropriate levels of trust in AI in healthcare are conditioned on aspects related to reliability, transparency, quality verification, and inter-organizational compatibility. •Creating the conditions for trust to emerge requires the involvement of various stakeholders, who will have to compensate the problem's inherent complexity by finding and promoting well-defined solutions.

A tale of 2 digital hospitals: A qualitative study of antimicrobial stewardship teams.

AIMS: We aim to examine and understand the work processes of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams across 2 hospitals that use the same digital intervention, and to identify the barriers and enablers to effective AMS in each setting. METHODS: Employing a contextual inquiry approach informed by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, observations and semistructured interviews were conducted with AMS team members (n = 15) in 2 Australian hospitals. Qualitative data analysis was conducted, mapping themes to the SEIPS framework. RESULTS: Both hospitals utilized similar systems, however, they displayed variations in AMS processes, particularly in postprescription review, interdepartmental AMS meetings and the utilization of digital tools. An antimicrobial dashboard was available at both hospitals but was utilized more at the hospital where the AMS team members were involved in the dashboard's development, and there were user champions. At the hospital where the dashboard was utilized less, participants were unaware of key features, and interoperability issues were observed. Establishing strong relationships between the AMS team and prescribers emerged as key to effective AMS at both hospitals. However, organizational and cultural differences were found, with 1 hospital reporting insufficient support from executive leadership, increased prescriber autonomy and resource constraints. CONCLUSION: Organizational and cultural elements, such as executive support, resource allocation and interdepartmental relationships, played a crucial role in achieving AMS goals. System interoperability and user champions further promoted the adoption of digital tools, potentially improving AMS outcomes through increased user engagement and acceptance.

Efficiency of computerized clinical decision support systems involving anticoagulants: A flashmob study in Dutch hospital pharmacies.

AIMS: Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) aim to prevent adverse drug events. However, these systems generate an overload of alerts that are not always clinically relevant. Anticoagulants are frequently involved in these alerts. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of CDSS alerts on anticoagulants in Dutch hospital pharmacies. METHODS: A multicentre, single-day, cross-sectional study was conducted using a flashmob design in Dutch hospital pharmacies, which have CDSSs that operate on both a national medication surveillance database and on self-developed clinical rules. Hospital pharmacists and pharmacy technicians collected data on the number and type of alerts and time needed for assessing these alerts. The primary outcome was the CDSS efficiency on anticoagulants, defined as the percentage of alerts on anticoagulants that led to an intervention. Secondary outcomes where among other CDSSs efficiency related to any medications and the time expenditure. Descriptive data-analysis was used. RESULTS: Of the 69 hospital pharmacies invited, 42 (61%) participated. The efficiency of CDSS alerts on anticoagulants was 4.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 14.0%) for the national medication surveillance database alerts and 14.3% (IQR 40.0%) for alerts from clinical rules. For any medication, the efficiency was lower: 1.8% (IQR 7.5%) and 13.4% (IQR 21.5%) respectively. The median time for assessing the relevance of all alerts was 2 (IQR 1:21) h/day for pharmacists and 6 (IQR 5:01) h/day for pharmacy technicians. CONCLUSION: CDSS efficiency is generally low, both for anticoagulants and any medication, while the time investment is high. Optimization of CDSSs is needed.

Selecting postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: An updated assessment and systematic review of leading commercially available gene expression assays.

Gene expression assays (GEAs) can guide treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Several large prospective randomized clinical trials, and numerous additional studies, now provide new information for selecting an appropriate GEA. This systematic review builds upon prior reviews, with a focus on five widely commercialized GEAs (Breast Cancer Index®, EndoPredict®, MammaPrint®, Oncotype DX®, and Prosigna®). The comprehensive dataset available provides a contemporary opportunity to assess each GEA's utility as a prognosticator and/or predictor of adjuvant therapy benefit.

Evaluating artificial intelligence for comparative radiography.

INTRODUCTION: Comparative radiography is a forensic identification and shortlisting technique based on the comparison of skeletal structures in ante-mortem and post-mortem images. The images (e.g., 2D radiographs or 3D computed tomographies) are manually superimposed and visually compared by a forensic practitioner. It requires a significant amount of time per comparison, limiting its utility in large comparison scenarios. METHODS: We propose and validate a novel framework for automating the shortlisting of candidates using artificial intelligence. It is composed of (1) a segmentation method to delimit skeletal structures' silhouettes in radiographs, (2) a superposition method to generate the best simulated "radiographs" from 3D images according to the segmented radiographs, and (3) a decision-making method for shortlisting all candidates ranked according to a similarity metric. MATERIAL: The dataset is composed of 180 computed tomographies and 180 radiographs where the frontal sinuses are visible. Frontal sinuses are the skeletal structure analyzed due to their high individualization capability. RESULTS: Firstly, we validate two deep learning-based techniques for segmenting the frontal sinuses in radiographs, obtaining high-quality results. Secondly, we study the framework's shortlisting capability using both automatic segmentations and superimpositions. The obtained superimpositions, based only on the superimposition metric, allowed us to filter out 40% of the possible candidates in a completely automatic manner. Thirdly, we perform a reliability study by comparing 180 radiographs against 180 computed tomographies using manual segmentations. The results allowed us to filter out 73% of the possible candidates. Furthermore, the results are robust to inter- and intra-expert-related errors.

Clinician views on how clinical decision support systems can help diagnose asthma in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma can be difficult to diagnose in primary care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can assist clinicians when making diagnostic decisions, but the perspectives of intended users need to be incorporated into the software if the CDSS is to be clinically useful. Therefore, we aimed to understand health professional views on the value of an asthma diagnosis CDSS and the barriers and facilitators for use in UK primary care. METHODS: We recruited doctors and nurses working in UK primary care who had experience of assessing respiratory symptoms and diagnosing asthma. Qualitative interviews were used to explore clinicians' experiences of making a diagnosis of asthma and understand views on a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: 16 clinicians (nine doctors, seven nurses) including 13 participants with over 10 years experience, contributed interviews. Participants saw the potential for a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis in primary care by structuring consultations, identifying relevant information from health records, and having visuals to communicate findings to patients. Being evidence based, regularly updated, integrated with software, quick and easy to use were considered important for a CDSS to be successfully implemented. Experienced clinicians were unsure a CDSS would help their routine practice, particularly in straightforward diagnostic scenarios, but thought a CDSS would be useful for trainees or less experienced colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: To be adopted into clinical practice, clinicians were clear that a CDSS must be validated, integrated with existing software, and quick and easy to use.

What Are Humans Doing in the Loop? Co-Reasoning and Practical Judgment When Using Machine Learning-Driven Decision Aids.

Within the ethical debate on Machine Learning-driven decision support systems (ML_CDSS), notions such as "human in the loop" or "meaningful human control" are often cited as being necessary for ethical legitimacy. In addition, ethical principles usually serve as the major point of reference in ethical guidance documents, stating that conflicts between principles need to be weighed and balanced against each other. Starting from a neo-Kantian viewpoint inspired by Onora O'Neill, this article makes a concrete suggestion of how to interpret the role of the "human in the loop" and to overcome the perspective of rivaling ethical principles in the evaluation of AI in health care. We argue that patients should be perceived as "fellow workers" and epistemic partners in the interpretation of ML_CDSS outputs. We further highlight that a meaningful process of integrating (rather than weighing and balancing) ethical principles is most appropriate in the evaluation of medical AI.

Evaluating clinical decision support software (CDSS): challenges for robust evidence generation.

OBJECTIVES: Computerized clinical decision support software (CDSS) are digital health technologies that have been traditionally categorized as medical devices. However, the evaluation frameworks for traditional medical devices are not well adapted to assess the value and safety of CDSS. In this study, we identified a range of challenges associated with CDSS evaluation as a medical device and investigated whether and how CDSS are evaluated in Australia. METHODS: Using a qualitative approach, we interviewed 11 professionals involved in the implementation and evaluation of digital health technologies at national and regional levels. Data were thematically analyzed using both data-driven (inductive) and theory-based (deductive) approaches. RESULTS: Our results suggest that current CDSS evaluations have an overly narrow perspective on the risks and benefits of CDSS due to an inability to capture the impact of the technology on the sociotechnical environment. By adopting a static view of the CDSS, these evaluation frameworks are unable to discern how rapidly evolving technologies and a dynamic clinical environment can impact CDSS performance. After software upgrades, CDSS can transition from providing information to specifying diagnoses and treatments. Therefore, it is not clear how CDSS can be monitored continuously when changes in the software can directly affect patient safety. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the importance of taking a living health technology assessment approach to the evaluation of digital health technologies that evolve rapidly. There is a role for observational (real-world) evidence to understand the impact of changes to the technology and the sociotechnical environment on CDSS performance.

Towards proactive palliative care in oncology: developing an explainable EHR-based machine learning model for mortality risk prediction.

BACKGROUND: Ex-ante identification of the last year in life facilitates a proactive palliative approach. Machine learning models trained on electronic health records (EHR) demonstrate promising performance in cancer prognostication. However, gaps in literature include incomplete reporting of model performance, inadequate alignment of model formulation with implementation use-case, and insufficient explainability hindering trust and adoption in clinical settings. Hence, we aim to develop an explainable machine learning EHR-based model that prompts palliative care processes by predicting for 365-day mortality risk among patients with advanced cancer within an outpatient setting. METHODS: Our cohort consisted of 5,926 adults diagnosed with Stage 3 or 4 solid organ cancer between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020 and receiving ambulatory cancer care within a tertiary center. The classification problem was modelled using Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and aligned to our envisioned use-case: "Given a prediction point that corresponds to an outpatient cancer encounter, predict for mortality within 365-days from prediction point, using EHR data up to 365-days prior." The model was trained with 75% of the dataset (n = 39,416 outpatient encounters) and validated on a 25% hold-out dataset (n = 13,122 outpatient encounters). To explain model outputs, we used Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values. Clinical characteristics, laboratory tests and treatment data were used to train the model. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), while model calibration was assessed using the Brier score. RESULTS: In total, 17,149 of the 52,538 prediction points (32.6%) had a mortality event within the 365-day prediction window. The model demonstrated an AUROC of 0.861 (95% CI 0.856-0.867) and AUPRC of 0.771. The Brier score was 0.147, indicating slight overestimations of mortality risk. Explanatory diagrams utilizing SHAP values allowed visualization of feature impacts on predictions at both the global and individual levels. CONCLUSION: Our machine learning model demonstrated good discrimination and precision-recall in predicting 365-day mortality risk among individuals with advanced cancer. It has the potential to provide personalized mortality predictions and facilitate earlier integration of palliative care.

The ethical requirement of explainability for AI-DSS in healthcare: a systematic review of reasons.

BACKGROUND: Despite continuous performance improvements, especially in clinical contexts, a major challenge of Artificial Intelligence based Decision Support Systems (AI-DSS) remains their degree of epistemic opacity. The conditions of and the solutions for the justified use of the occasionally unexplainable technology in healthcare are an active field of research. In March 2024, the European Union agreed upon the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), requiring medical AI-DSS to be ad-hoc explainable or to use post-hoc explainability methods. The ethical debate does not seem to settle on this requirement yet. This systematic review aims to outline and categorize the positions and arguments in the ethical debate. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on PubMed, BASE, and Scopus for English-speaking scientific peer-reviewed publications from 2016 to 2024. The inclusion criterion was to give explicit requirements of explainability for AI-DSS in healthcare and reason for it. Non-domain-specific documents, as well as surveys, reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded. The ethical requirements for explainability outlined in the documents were qualitatively analyzed with respect to arguments for the requirement of explainability and the required level of explainability. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 1662 documents; 44 documents were included in the review after eligibility screening of the remaining full texts. Our analysis showed that 17 records argue in favor of the requirement of explainable AI methods (xAI) or ad-hoc explainable models, providing 9 categories of arguments. The other 27 records argued against a general requirement, providing 11 categories of arguments. Also, we found that 14 works advocate the need for context-dependent levels of explainability, as opposed to 30 documents, arguing for context-independent, absolute standards. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review of reasons shows no clear agreement on the requirement of post-hoc explainability methods or ad-hoc explainable models for AI-DSS in healthcare. The arguments found in the debate were referenced and responded to from different perspectives, demonstrating an interactive discourse. Policymakers and researchers should watch the development of the debate closely. Conversely, ethicists should be well informed by empirical and technical research, given the frequency of advancements in the field.

Clinicians' roles and necessary levels of understanding in the use of artificial intelligence: A qualitative interview study with German medical students.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-driven Clinical Decision Support Systems (AI-CDSS) are being increasingly introduced into various domains of health care for diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic and other purposes. A significant part of the discourse on ethically appropriate conditions relate to the levels of understanding and explicability needed for ensuring responsible clinical decision-making when using AI-CDSS. Empirical evidence on stakeholders' viewpoints on these issues is scarce so far. The present study complements the empirical-ethical body of research by, on the one hand, investigating the requirements for understanding and explicability in depth with regard to the rationale behind them. On the other hand, it surveys medical students at the end of their studies as stakeholders, of whom little data is available so far, but for whom AI-CDSS will be an important part of their medical practice. METHODS: Fifteen semi-structured qualitative interviews (each lasting an average of 56 min) were conducted with German medical students to investigate their perspectives and attitudes on the use of AI-CDSS. The problem-centred interviews draw on two hypothetical case vignettes of AI-CDSS employed in nephrology and surgery. Interviewees' perceptions and convictions of their own clinical role and responsibilities in dealing with AI-CDSS were elicited as well as viewpoints on explicability as well as the necessary level of understanding and competencies needed on the clinicians' side. The qualitative data were analysed according to key principles of qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz). RESULTS: In response to the central question about the necessary understanding of AI-CDSS tools and the emergence of their outputs as well as the reasons for the requirements placed on them, two types of argumentation could be differentiated inductively from the interviewees' statements: the first type, the clinician as a systemic trustee (or "the one relying"), highlights that there needs to be empirical evidence and adequate approval processes that guarantee minimised harm and a clinical benefit from the employment of an AI-CDSS. Based on proof of these requirements, the use of an AI-CDSS would be appropriate, as according to "the one relying", clinicians should choose those measures that statistically cause the least harm. The second type, the clinician as an individual expert (or "the one controlling"), sets higher prerequisites that go beyond ensuring empirical evidence and adequate approval processes. These higher prerequisites relate to the clinician's necessary level of competence and understanding of how a specific AI-CDSS works and how to use it properly in order to evaluate its outputs and to mitigate potential risks for the individual patient. Both types are unified in their high esteem of evidence-based clinical practice and the need to communicate with the patient on the use of medical AI. However, the interviewees' different conceptions of the clinician's role and responsibilities cause them to have different requirements regarding the clinician's understanding and explicability of an AI-CDSS beyond the proof of benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The study results highlight two different types among (future) clinicians regarding their view of the necessary levels of understanding and competence. These findings should inform the debate on appropriate training programmes and professional standards (e.g. clinical practice guidelines) that enable the safe and effective clinical employment of AI-CDSS in various clinical fields. While current approaches search for appropriate minimum requirements of the necessary understanding and competence, the differences between (future) clinicians in terms of their information and understanding needs described here can lead to more differentiated approaches to solutions.

AI-driven decision support systems and epistemic reliance: a qualitative study on obstetricians' and midwives' perspectives on integrating AI-driven CTG into clinical decision making.

BACKGROUND: Given that AI-driven decision support systems (AI-DSS) are intended to assist in medical decision making, it is essential that clinicians are willing to incorporate AI-DSS into their practice. This study takes as a case study the use of AI-driven cardiotography (CTG), a type of AI-DSS, in the context of intrapartum care. Focusing on the perspectives of obstetricians and midwives regarding the ethical and trust-related issues of incorporating AI-driven tools in their practice, this paper explores the conditions that AI-driven CTG must fulfill for clinicians to feel justified in incorporating this assistive technology into their decision-making processes regarding interventions in labor. METHODS: This study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted online with eight obstetricians and five midwives based in England. Participants were asked about their current decision-making processes about when to intervene in labor, how AI-driven CTG might enhance or disrupt this process, and what it would take for them to trust this kind of technology. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize thematic codes that recurred in interviews to identify the issues that mattered most to participants. Topics and themes that were repeated across interviews were identified to form the basis of the analysis and conclusions of this paper. RESULTS: There were four major themes that emerged from our interviews with obstetricians and midwives regarding the conditions that AI-driven CTG must fulfill: (1) the importance of accurate and efficient risk assessments; (2) the capacity for personalization and individualized medicine; (3) the lack of significance regarding the type of institution that develops technology; and (4) the need for transparency in the development process. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy, efficiency, personalization abilities, transparency, and clear evidence that it can improve outcomes are conditions that clinicians deem necessary for AI-DSS to meet in order to be considered reliable and therefore worthy of being incorporated into the decision-making process. Importantly, healthcare professionals considered themselves as the epistemic authorities in the clinical context and the bearers of responsibility for delivering appropriate care. Therefore, what mattered to them was being able to evaluate the reliability of AI-DSS on their own terms, and have confidence in implementing them in their practice.

Appropriate medication use in Dutch terminal care: study protocol of a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (the AMUSE study).

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among patients with a limited life expectancy, even shortly before death. This is partly inevitable, because these patients often have multiple symptoms which need to be alleviated. However, the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in these patients is also common. Although patients and relatives are often willing to deprescribe medication, physicians are sometimes reluctant due to the lack of evidence on appropriate medication management for patients in the last phase of life. The aim of the AMUSE study is to investigate whether the use of CDSS-OPTIMED, a software program that gives weekly personalized medication recommendations to attending physicians of patients with a limited life expectancy, improves patients' quality of life. METHODS: A multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted among patients with a life expectancy of three months or less. The stepped-wedge cluster design, where the clusters are the different study sites, involves sequential crossover of clusters from control to intervention until all clusters are exposed. In total, seven sites (4 hospitals, 2 general practices and 1 hospice from the Netherlands) will participate in this study. During the control period, patients will receive 'care as usual'. During the intervention period, CDSS-OPTIMED will be activated. CDSS-OPTIMED is a validated software program that analyses the use of medication based on a specific set of clinical rules for patients with a limited life expectancy. The software program will provide the attending physicians with weekly personalized medication recommendations. The primary outcome of this study is patients' quality of life two weeks after baseline assessment as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, quality of life question. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study investigating the effect of weekly personalized medication recommendations to attending physicians on the quality of life of patients with a limited life expectancy. We hypothesize that the CDSS-OPTIMED intervention could lead to improved quality of life in patients with a life expectancy of three months or less. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05351281, Registration Date: April 11, 2022).

Clinical Decision Support System Used in Spinal Disorders: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Spinal disorders are highly prevalent worldwide with high socioeconomic costs. This cost is associated with the demand for treatment and productivity loss, prompting the exploration of technologies to improve patient outcomes. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are computerized systems that are increasingly used to facilitate safe and efficient health care. Their applications range in depth and can be found across health care specialties. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to explore the use of CDSSs in patients with spinal disorders. METHODS: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for this scoping review and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) statement. Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and PsycINFO, were searched from inception until October 11, 2022. The included studies examined the use of digitalized CDSSs in patients with spinal disorders. RESULTS: A total of 4 major CDSS functions were identified from 31 studies: preventing unnecessary imaging (n=8, 26%), aiding diagnosis (n=6, 19%), aiding prognosis (n=11, 35%), and recommending treatment options (n=6, 20%). Most studies used the knowledge-based system. Logistic regression was the most commonly used method, followed by decision tree algorithms. The use of CDSSs to aid in the management of spinal disorders was generally accepted over the threat to physicians' clinical decision-making autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effectiveness was frequently evaluated by examining the agreement between the decisions made by the CDSSs and the health care providers, comparing the CDSS recommendations with actual clinical outcomes would be preferable. In addition, future studies on CDSS development should focus on system integration, considering end user's needs and preferences, and external validation and impact studies to assess effectiveness and generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/dyz3f; https://osf.io/dyz3f.

Pharmacogenetics Clinical Decision Support Systems for Primary Care in England: Co-Design Study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetics can impact patient care and outcomes through personalizing the selection of medicines, resulting in improved efficacy and a reduction in harmful side effects. Despite the existence of compelling clinical evidence and international guidelines highlighting the benefits of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice, implementation within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom is limited. An important barrier to overcome is the development of IT solutions that support the integration of pharmacogenetic data into health care systems. This necessitates a better understanding of the role of electronic health records (EHRs) and the design of clinical decision support systems that are acceptable to clinicians, particularly those in primary care. OBJECTIVE: Explore the needs and requirements of a pharmacogenetic service from the perspective of primary care clinicians with a view to co-design a prototype solution. METHODS: We used ethnographic and think-aloud observations, user research workshops, and prototyping. The participants for this study included general practitioners and pharmacists. In total, we undertook 5 sessions of ethnographic observation to understand current practices and workflows. This was followed by 3 user research workshops, each with its own topic guide starting with personas and early ideation, through to exploring the potential of clinical decision support systems and prototype design. We subsequently analyzed workshop data using affinity diagramming and refined the key requirements for the solution collaboratively as a multidisciplinary project team. RESULTS: User research results identified that pharmacogenetic data must be incorporated within existing EHRs rather than through a stand-alone portal. The information presented through clinical decision support systems must be clear, accessible, and user-friendly as the service will be used by a range of end users. Critically, the information should be displayed within the prescribing workflow, rather than discrete results stored statically in the EHR. Finally, the prescribing recommendations should be authoritative to provide confidence in the validity of the results. Based on these findings we co-designed an interactive prototype, demonstrating pharmacogenetic clinical decision support integrated within the prescribing workflow of an EHR. CONCLUSIONS: This study marks a significant step forward in the design of systems that support pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in primary care settings. Clinical decision support systems have the potential to enhance the personalization of medicines, provided they are effectively implemented within EHRs and present pharmacogenetic data in a user-friendly, actionable, and standardized format. Achieving this requires the development of a decoupled, standards-based architecture that allows for the separation of data from application, facilitating integration across various EHRs through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs). More globally, this study demonstrates the role of health informatics and user-centered design in realizing the potential of personalized medicine at scale and ensuring that the benefits of genomic innovation reach patients and populations effectively.

Predictors of Health Care Practitioners' Intention to Use AI-Enabled Clinical Decision Support Systems: Meta-Analysis Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSSs) offer potential for improving health care outcomes, but their adoption among health care practitioners remains limited. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis identified predictors influencing health care practitioners' intention to use AI-CDSSs based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Additional predictors were examined based on existing empirical evidence. METHODS: The literature search using electronic databases, forward searches, conference programs, and personal correspondence yielded 7731 results, of which 17 (0.22%) studies met the inclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis, relative weight analyses, and meta-analytic moderation and mediation analyses were used to examine the relationships between relevant predictor variables and the intention to use AI-CDSSs. RESULTS: The meta-analysis results supported the application of the UTAUT to the context of the intention to use AI-CDSSs. The results showed that performance expectancy (r=0.66), effort expectancy (r=0.55), social influence (r=0.66), and facilitating conditions (r=0.66) were positively associated with the intention to use AI-CDSSs, in line with the predictions of the UTAUT. The meta-analysis further identified positive attitude (r=0.63), trust (r=0.73), anxiety (r=-0.41), perceived risk (r=-0.21), and innovativeness (r=0.54) as additional relevant predictors. Trust emerged as the most influential predictor overall. The results of the moderation analyses show that the relationship between social influence and use intention becomes weaker with increasing age. In addition, the relationship between effort expectancy and use intention was stronger for diagnostic AI-CDSSs than for devices that combined diagnostic and treatment recommendations. Finally, the relationship between facilitating conditions and use intention was mediated through performance and effort expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis contributes to the understanding of the predictors of intention to use AI-CDSSs based on an extended UTAUT model. More research is needed to substantiate the identified relationships and explain the observed variations in effect sizes by identifying relevant moderating factors. The research findings bear important implications for the design and implementation of training programs for health care practitioners to ease the adoption of AI-CDSSs into their practice.

Resilient Artificial Intelligence in Health: Synthesis and Research Agenda Toward Next-Generation Trustworthy Clinical Decision Support.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are gaining momentum by relying on a greater volume and variety of secondary use data. However, the uncertainty, variability, and biases in real-world data environments still pose significant challenges to the development of health AI, its routine clinical use, and its regulatory frameworks. Health AI should be resilient against real-world environments throughout its lifecycle, including the training and prediction phases and maintenance during production, and health AI regulations should evolve accordingly. Data quality issues, variability over time or across sites, information uncertainty, human-computer interaction, and fundamental rights assurance are among the most relevant challenges. If health AI is not designed resiliently with regard to these real-world data effects, potentially biased data-driven medical decisions can risk the safety and fundamental rights of millions of people. In this viewpoint, we review the challenges, requirements, and methods for resilient AI in health and provide a research framework to improve the trustworthiness of next-generation AI-based clinical decision support.