Implications of Race Adjustment in Lung-Function Equations.

BACKGROUND: Adjustment for race is discouraged in lung-function testing, but the implications of adopting race-neutral equations have not been comprehensively quantified. METHODS: We obtained longitudinal data from 369,077 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, U.K. Biobank, the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Using these data, we compared the race-based 2012 Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI-2012) equations with race-neutral equations introduced in 2022 (GLI-Global). Evaluated outcomes included national projections of clinical, occupational, and financial reclassifications; individual lung-allocation scores for transplantation priority; and concordance statistics (C statistics) for clinical prediction tasks. RESULTS: Among the 249 million persons in the United States between 6 and 79 years of age who are able to produce high-quality spirometric results, the use of GLI-Global equations may reclassify ventilatory impairment for 12.5 million persons, medical impairment ratings for 8.16 million, occupational eligibility for 2.28 million, grading of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for 2.05 million, and military disability compensation for 413,000. These potential changes differed according to race; for example, classifications of nonobstructive ventilatory impairment may change dramatically, increasing 141% (95% confidence interval [CI], 113 to 169) among Black persons and decreasing 69% (95% CI, 63 to 74) among White persons. Annual disability payments may increase by more than $1 billion among Black veterans and decrease by $0.5 billion among White veterans. GLI-2012 and GLI-Global equations had similar discriminative accuracy with regard to respiratory symptoms, health care utilization, new-onset disease, death from any cause, death related to respiratory disease, and death among persons on a transplant waiting list, with differences in C statistics ranging from -0.008 to 0.011. CONCLUSIONS: The use of race-based and race-neutral equations generated similarly accurate predictions of respiratory outcomes but assigned different disease classifications, occupational eligibility, and disability compensation for millions of persons, with effects diverging according to race. (Funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.).

Heterogeneity and predictors of the effects of AI assistance on radiologists.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical image interpretation requires effective collaboration between clinicians and AI algorithms. Although previous studies demonstrated the potential of AI assistance in improving overall clinician performance, the individual impact on clinicians remains unclear. This large-scale study examined the heterogeneous effects of AI assistance on 140 radiologists across 15 chest X-ray diagnostic tasks and identified predictors of these effects. Surprisingly, conventional experience-based factors, such as years of experience, subspecialty and familiarity with AI tools, fail to reliably predict the impact of AI assistance. Additionally, lower-performing radiologists do not consistently benefit more from AI assistance, challenging prevailing assumptions. Instead, we found that the occurrence of AI errors strongly influences treatment outcomes, with inaccurate AI predictions adversely affecting radiologist performance on the aggregate of all pathologies and on half of the individual pathologies investigated. Our findings highlight the importance of personalized approaches to clinician-AI collaboration and the importance of accurate AI models. By understanding the factors that shape the effectiveness of AI assistance, this study provides valuable insights for targeted implementation of AI, enabling maximum benefits for individual clinicians in clinical practice.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review.

This scoping review of randomised controlled trials on artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical practice reveals an expanding interest in AI across clinical specialties and locations. The USA and China are leading in the number of trials, with a focus on deep learning systems for medical imaging, particularly in gastroenterology and radiology. A majority of trials (70 [81%] of 86) report positive primary endpoints, primarily related to diagnostic yield or performance; however, the predominance of single-centre trials, little demographic reporting, and varying reports of operational efficiency raise concerns about the generalisability and practicality of these results. Despite the promising outcomes, considering the likelihood of publication bias and the need for more comprehensive research including multicentre trials, diverse outcome measures, and improved reporting standards is crucial. Future AI trials should prioritise patient-relevant outcomes to fully understand AI's true effects and limitations in health care.