Search

Introduction Surveys conducted internationally have found widespread interest in artificial intelligence (AI) amongst medical students. No similar surveys have been conducted in Western Australia (WA) and it is not known how medical students in WA feel about the use of AI in healthcare or their understanding of AI. We aim to assess WA medical students’ attitudes towards AI in general, AI in healthcare, and the inclusion of AI education in the medical curriculum. Methods A digital survey instrument was developed based on a review of available literature and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey was piloted with a group of medical students and refined based on their feedback. We then sent this anonymous digital survey to all medical students in WA (approximately 1539 students). Responses were open from the 7th of September 2021 to the 7th of November 2021. Students’ categorical responses were qualitatively analysed, and free text comments from the survey were qualitatively analysed using open coding techniques. Results Overall, 134 students answered one or more questions (8.9% response rate). The majority of students (82.0%) were 20–29 years old, studying medicine as a postgraduate degree (77.6%), and had started clinical rotations (62.7%). Students were interested in AI (82.6%), self-reported having a basic understanding of AI (84.8%), but few agreed that they had an understanding of the basic computational principles of AI (33.3%) or the limitations of AI (46.2%). Most students (87.5%) had not received teaching in AI. The majority of students (58.6%) agreed that AI should be part of medical training and most (72.7%) wanted more teaching focusing on AI in medicine. Medical students appeared optimistic regarding the role of AI in medicine, with most (74.4%) agreeing with the statement that AI will improve medicine in general. The majority (56.6%) of medical students were not concerned about the impact of AI on their job security as a doctor. Students selected radiology (72.6%), pathology (58.2%), and medical administration (44.8%) as the specialties most likely to be impacted by AI, and psychiatry (61.2%), palliative care (48.5%), and obstetrics and gynaecology (41.0%) as the specialties least likely to be impacted by AI. Qualitative analysis of free text comments identified the use of AI as a tool, and that doctors will not be replaced as common themes. Conclusion Medical students in WA appear to be interested in AI. However, they have not received education about AI and do not feel they understand its basic computational principles or limitations. AI appears to be a current deficit in the medical curriculum in WA, and most students surveyed were supportive of its introduction. These results are consistent with previous surveys conducted internationally.

BackgroundChest pain is amongst the most common reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED). There are many causes of chest pain, and it is important for the emergency physician to quickly and accurately diagnose life threatening causes such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Multiple clinical decision tools have been developed to assist clinicians in risk stratifying patients with chest. There is growing recognition that machine learning (ML) will have a significant impact on the practice of medicine in the near future and may assist with diagnosis and risk stratification. This systematic review aims to evaluate how ML has been applied to adults presenting to the ED with undifferentiated chest pain and assess if ML models show improved performance when compared to physicians or current risk stratification techniques.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review of journal articles that applied a ML technique to an adult patient presenting to an emergency department with undifferentiated chest pain. Multiple databases were searched from inception through to November 2020. In total, 3361 articles were screened, and 23 articles were included. We did not conduct a metanalysis due to a high level of heterogeneity between studies in both their methods, and reporting. The most common primary outcomes assessed were diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (12 studies), and prognosis of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (6 studies). There were 14 retrospective studies and 5 prospective studies. Four studies reported the development of a machine learning model retrospectively then tested it prospectively. The most common machine learning methods used were artificial neural networks (14 studies), random forest (6 studies), support vector machine (5 studies), and gradient boosting (2 studies). Multiple studies achieved high accuracy in both the diagnosis of AMI in the ED setting, and in predicting mortality and composite outcomes over various timeframes. ML outperformed existing risk stratification scores in all cases, and physicians in three out of four cases. The majority of studies were single centre, retrospective, and without prospective or external validation. There were only 3 studies that were considered low risk of bias and had low applicability concerns. Two studies reported integrating the ML model into clinical practice.ConclusionsResearch on applications of ML for undifferentiated chest pain in the ED has been ongoing for decades. ML has been reported to outperform emergency physicians and current risk stratification tools to diagnose AMI and predict MACE but has rarely been integrated into practice. Many studies assessing the use of ML in undifferentiated chest pain in the ED have a high risk of bias. It is important that future studies make use of recently developed standardised ML reporting guidelines, register their protocols, and share their datasets and code. Future work is required to assess the impact of ML model implementation on clinical decision making, patient orientated outcomes, and patient and physician acceptability.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD42020184977.