Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625083›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2020

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applied at the Point of Care.

Zuzanna Angehrn, Liina Haldna, Anthe S Zandvliet, Eva Gil Berglund, Joost Zeeuw, Billy Amzal, S Y Amy Cheung, Thomas M Polasek, Marc Pfister, Thomas Kerbusch and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Zuzanna AngehrnCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Liina HaldnaCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Anthe S ZandvlietCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Eva Gil BerglundCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Joost ZeeuwPacMed, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Billy AmzalCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
S Y Amy CheungCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Thomas M PolasekCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Marc PfisterCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Thomas KerbuschCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Niedre M HeckmanCertara, Princeton, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe increasing availability of healthcare data and rapid development of big data analytic methods has opened new avenues for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)- and Machine Learning (ML)-based technology in medical practice. However, applications at the point of care are still scarce.

objectiveReview and discuss case studies to understand current capabilities for applying AI/ML in the healthcare setting, and regulatory requirements in the US, Europe and China.

methodsA targeted narrative literature review of AI/ML based digital tools was performed. Scientific publications (identified in PubMed) and grey literature (identified on the websites of regulatory agencies) were reviewed and analyzed.

resultsFrom the regulatory perspective, AI/ML-based solutions can be considered medical devices (i.e., Software as Medical Device, SaMD). A case series of SaMD is presented. First, tools for monitoring and remote management of chronic diseases are presented. Second, imaging applications for diagnostic support are discussed. Finally, clinical decision support tools to facilitate the choice of treatment and precision dosing are reviewed. While tested and validated algorithms for precision dosing exist, their implementation at the point of care is limited, and their regulatory and commercialization pathway is not clear. Regulatory requirements depend on the level of risk associated with the use of the device in medical practice, and can be classified into administrative (manufacturing and quality control), software-related (design, specification, hazard analysis, architecture, traceability, software risk analysis, cybersecurity, etc.), clinical evidence (including patient perspectives in some cases), non-clinical evidence (dosing validation and biocompatibility/toxicology) and other, such as e.g. benefit-to-risk determination, risk assessment and mitigation. There generally is an alignment between the US and Europe. China additionally requires that the clinical evidence is applicable to the Chinese population and recommends that a third-party central laboratory evaluates the clinical trial results.

conclusionsThe number of promising AI/ML-based technologies is increasing, but few have been implemented widely at the point of care. The need for external validation, implementation logistics, and data exchange and privacy remain the main obstacles.

Indexed as

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in medical practicechronic disease managementclinical decision support toolsmodel-informed precision dosingprecision dosingreal-world evidencesoftware as a medical device

Identifiers

PMID32625083
PMCPMC7314939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.