Search

Summary: The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human–AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Summary: The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human–AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

Summary: Background: Deep learning offers considerable promise for medical diagnostics. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of deep learning algorithms versus health-care professionals in classifying diseases using medical imaging. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Ovid-MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index for studies published from Jan 1, 2012, to June 6, 2019. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of deep learning models and health-care professionals based on medical imaging, for any disease, were included. We excluded studies that used medical waveform data graphics material or investigated the accuracy of image segmentation rather than disease classification. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data and constructed contingency tables to derive the outcomes of interest: sensitivity and specificity. Studies undertaking an out-of-sample external validation were included in a meta-analysis, using a unified hierarchical model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018091176. Findings: Our search identified 31 587 studies, of which 82 (describing 147 patient cohorts) were included. 69 studies provided enough data to construct contingency tables, enabling calculation of test accuracy, with sensitivity ranging from 9·7% to 100·0% (mean 79·1%, SD 0·2) and specificity ranging from 38·9% to 100·0% (mean 88·3%, SD 0·1). An out-of-sample external validation was done in 25 studies, of which 14 made the comparison between deep learning models and health-care professionals in the same sample. Comparison of the performance between health-care professionals in these 14 studies, when restricting the analysis to the contingency table for each study reporting the highest accuracy, found a pooled sensitivity of 87·0% (95% CI 83·0–90·2) for deep learning models and 86·4% (79·9–91·0) for health-care professionals, and a pooled specificity of 92·5% (95% CI 85·1–96·4) for deep learning models and 90·5% (80·6–95·7) for health-care professionals. Interpretation: Our review found the diagnostic performance of deep learning models to be equivalent to that of health-care professionals. However, a major finding of the review is that few studies presented externally validated results or compared the performance of deep learning models and health-care professionals using the same sample. Additionally, poor reporting is prevalent in deep learning studies, which limits reliable interpretation of the reported diagnostic accuracy. New reporting standards that address specific challenges of deep learning could improve future studies, enabling greater confidence in the results of future evaluations of this promising technology. Funding: None.

Summary: Background: Deep learning has the potential to transform health care; however, substantial expertise is required to train such models. We sought to evaluate the utility of automated deep learning software to develop medical image diagnostic classifiers by health-care professionals with no coding—and no deep learning—expertise. Methods: We used five publicly available open-source datasets: retinal fundus images (MESSIDOR); optical coherence tomography (OCT) images (Guangzhou Medical University and Shiley Eye Institute, version 3); images of skin lesions (Human Against Machine [HAM] 10000), and both paediatric and adult chest x-ray (CXR) images (Guangzhou Medical University and Shiley Eye Institute, version 3 and the National Institute of Health [NIH] dataset, respectively) to separately feed into a neural architecture search framework, hosted through Google Cloud AutoML, that automatically developed a deep learning architecture to classify common diseases. Sensitivity (recall), specificity, and positive predictive value (precision) were used to evaluate the diagnostic properties of the models. The discriminative performance was assessed using the area under the precision recall curve (AUPRC). In the case of the deep learning model developed on a subset of the HAM10000 dataset, we did external validation using the Edinburgh Dermofit Library dataset. Findings: Diagnostic properties and discriminative performance from internal validations were high in the binary classification tasks (sensitivity 73·3–97·0%; specificity 67–100%; AUPRC 0·87–1·00). In the multiple classification tasks, the diagnostic properties ranged from 38% to 100% for sensitivity and from 67% to 100% for specificity. The discriminative performance in terms of AUPRC ranged from 0·57 to 1·00 in the five automated deep learning models. In an external validation using the Edinburgh Dermofit Library dataset, the automated deep learning model showed an AUPRC of 0·47, with a sensitivity of 49% and a positive predictive value of 52%. Interpretation: All models, except the automated deep learning model trained on the multilabel classification task of the NIH CXR14 dataset, showed comparable discriminative performance and diagnostic properties to state-of-the-art performing deep learning algorithms. The performance in the external validation study was low. The quality of the open-access datasets (including insufficient information about patient flow and demographics) and the absence of measurement for precision, such as confidence intervals, constituted the major limitations of this study. The availability of automated deep learning platforms provide an opportunity for the medical community to enhance their understanding in model development and evaluation. Although the derivation of classification models without requiring a deep understanding of the mathematical, statistical, and programming principles is attractive, comparable performance to expertly designed models is limited to more elementary classification tasks. Furthermore, care should be placed in adhering to ethical principles when using these automated models to avoid discrimination and causing harm. Future studies should compare several application programming interfaces on thoroughly curated datasets. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Moorfields Eye Charity.