Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Machine learning in clinical practice: Evaluation of an artificial intelligence tool after implementation.
Akhlaghi, Hamed; Freeman, Sam; Vari, Cynthia; McKenna, Bede; Braitberg, George; Karro, Jonathan; Tahayori, Bahman.
Affiliation
  • Akhlaghi H; Department of Emergency Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Freeman S; Department of Medical Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Vari C; Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • McKenna B; Department of Emergency Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Braitberg G; SensiLab, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Karro J; Department of Emergency Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Tahayori B; Department of Emergency Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emerg Med Australas ; 36(1): 118-124, 2024 Feb.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37771067
OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence (AI) has gradually found its way into healthcare, and its future integration into clinical practice is inevitable. In the present study, we evaluate the accuracy of a novel AI algorithm designed to predict admission based on a triage note after clinical implementation. This is the first of such studies to investigate real-time AI performance in the emergency setting. METHODS: The novel AI algorithm that predicts admission using a triage note was translated into clinical practice and integrated within St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne's electronic emergency patient management system. The data were collected from 1 January 2021 to 17 August 2022 to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the AI system after implementation. RESULTS: A total of 77 125 ED presentations were included. The live AI algorithm has a sensitivity of 73.1% (95% confidence interval 72.5-73.8), specificity of 74.3% (73.9-74.7), positive predictive value of 50% (49.6-50.4) and negative predictive value of 88.7% (88.5-89) with a total accuracy of 74% (73.7-74.3). The accuracy of the system was at the lowest for admission to psychiatric units (34%) and at the highest for gastroenterology and medical admission (84% and 80%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study showed the diagnostic evaluation of a real-time AI clinical decision-support tool became less accurate than the original. Although real-time sensitivity and specificity of the AI tool was still acceptable as a decision-support tool in the ED, we propose that continuous training and evaluation of AI-enabled clinical support tools in healthcare are conducted to ensure consistent accuracy and performance to prevent inadvertent consequences.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Artificial Intelligence / Gastroenterology Type of study: Evaluation_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Emerg Med Australas Journal subject: MEDICINA DE EMERGENCIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia Country of publication: Australia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Artificial Intelligence / Gastroenterology Type of study: Evaluation_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Emerg Med Australas Journal subject: MEDICINA DE EMERGENCIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia Country of publication: Australia