Concerns over 'Exaggerated' Study Claims of AI Outperforming Doctors

Many studies claiming that artificial intelligence is as good as (or better than) human experts at interpreting medical images are of poor quality and are arguably exaggerated, posing a risk for the safety of 'millions of patients' warn researchers in The BMJ.

Their findings raise concerns about the quality of evidence underpinning many of these studies, and highlight the need to improve their design and reporting standards.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is an innovative and fast moving field with the potential to improve patient care and relieve overburdened health services. Deep learning is a branch of AI that has shown particular promise in medical imaging.

The volume of published research on deep learning is growing, and some media headlines that claim superior performance to doctors have fuelled hype for rapid implementation. But the methods and risk of bias of studies behind these headlines have not been examined in detail.

To address this, a team of researchers reviewed the results of published studies over the past 10 years, comparing the performance of a deep learning algorithm in medical imaging with expert clinicians.

They found just two eligible randomised clinical trials and 81 non-randomised studies.

Of the non-randomised studies, only nine were prospective (tracking and collecting information about individuals over time) and just six were tested in a 'real world' clinical setting.

The average number of human experts in the comparator group was just four, while access to raw data and code (to allow independent scrutiny of results) was severely limited.

More than two thirds (58 of 81) studies were judged to be at high risk of bias (problems in study design that can influence results), and adherence to recognised reporting standards was often poor.

Three quarters (61 studies) stated that performance of AI was at least comparable to (or better than) that of clinicians, and only 31 (38%) stated that further prospective studies or trials were needed.

The researchers point to some limitations, such as the possibility of missed studies and the focus on deep learning medical imaging studies so results may not apply to other types of AI.

Nevertheless, they say that at present, "many arguably exaggerated claims exist about equivalence with (or superiority over) clinicians, which presents a potential risk for patient safety and population health at the societal level."

Overpromising language "leaves studies susceptible to being misinterpreted by the media and the public, and as a result the possible provision of inappropriate care that does not necessarily align with patients' best interests," they warn.

"Maximising patient safety will be best served by ensuring that we develop a high quality and transparently reported evidence base moving forward," they conclude.

Myura Nagendran, Yang Chen, Christopher A Lovejoy, Anthony C Gordon, Matthieu Komorowski, Hugh Harvey, Eric J Topol, John P A Ioannidis, Gary S Collins, Mahiben Maruthappu.
Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies.
BMJ 2020. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m689.

Most Popular Now

International Scientific Symposium DigiH…

13 November 2020, Pfarrkirchen, Germany DigiHealthDay @DIT-ECRI is going to be a daylong action-packed event targeting primarily academia - from established researchers, to young scientists and students. Following the theme "How...

Siemens Healthineers Introduces Teamplay…

Siemens Healthineers announces market introduction of the teamplay digital health platform. With the teamplay digital health platform Siemens Healthineers paves the way for healthcare providers' digital transformation - facilitating easy...

Oxford University Provide Evidence for C…

A team of medical research and bioethics experts at Oxford University are supporting several European governments to explore the feasibility of a coronavirus mobile app for instant contact tracing. If...

Portable AI Device Turns Coughing Sounds…

University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers have invented a portable surveillance device powered by machine learning - called FluSense - which can detect coughing and crowd size in real time, then...

Fighting Hand Tremors: First comes AI, t…

Robots hold promise for a large number of people with neurological movement disorders severely affecting the quality of their lives. Now researchers have tapped artificial intelligence techniques to build an...

Buddy Healthcare Launches COVID-19 Remot…

Buddy Healthcare wants to help hospitals and healthcare professionals in the battle against the COVID-19. BuddyCare virtual care platform can be used for not only symptom tracking, remote monitoring and...

Philips Ramps Up Production of Critical …

Royal Philips (NYSE: PHG, AEX: PHIA), a global leader in health technology, announced that it is increasing the production of certain critical care products and solutions to help diagnose and...

Preventicus Appoints Ljubisav Matejevic …

Preventicus is proud to announce that the company continues to grow by bringing its unique, comprehensive care management programs for prevention of strokes and cardiovascular events to new international markets...

DMEA Postponed and Rescheduled for 16 to…

16 - 18 June 2020, Berlin, Germany. The German Association of Healthcare IT Vendors (bvitg) and Messe Berlin have agreed to postpone this year's edition of DMEA - Connecting Digital Health...

COVID-19 should be Wake-Up Call for Robo…

Robots could perform some of the "dull, dirty and dangerous" jobs associated with combating the COVID-19 pandemic, but that would require many new capabilities not currently being funded or developed...