Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34642177›Full record

ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2021

Evaluation framework to guide implementation of AI systems into healthcare settings.

Sandeep Reddy, Wendy Rogers, Ville-Petteri Makinen, Enrico Coiera, Pieta Brown, Markus Wenzel, Eva Weicken, Saba Ansari, Piyush Mathur, Aaron Casey and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ health & care informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

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

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

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Sandeep ReddySchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia sandeep.reddy@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5824-4900
Wendy RogersDepartment of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ville-Petteri MakinenSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Enrico CoieraAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6444-6584
Pieta BrownOrion Health, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Markus WenzelFraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications Heinrich-Hertz-Institute HHI, Berlin, Germany.
Eva WeickenFraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications Heinrich-Hertz-Institute HHI, Berlin, Germany.
Saba AnsariDeakin University Faculty of Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Piyush MathurAnesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3777-8767
Aaron CaseySouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Blair KellyDeakin University Faculty of Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo date, many artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been developed in healthcare, but adoption has been limited. This may be due to inappropriate or incomplete evaluation and a lack of internationally recognised AI standards on evaluation. To have confidence in the generalisability of AI systems in healthcare and to enable their integration into workflows, there is a need for a practical yet comprehensive instrument to assess the translational aspects of the available AI systems. Currently available evaluation frameworks for AI in healthcare focus on the reporting and regulatory aspects but have little guidance regarding assessment of the translational aspects of the AI systems like the functional, utility and ethical components.

methodsTo address this gap and create a framework that assesses real-world systems, an international team has developed a translationally focused evaluation framework termed 'Translational Evaluation of Healthcare AI (TEHAI)'. A critical review of literature assessed existing evaluation and reporting frameworks and gaps. Next, using health technology evaluation and translational principles, reporting components were identified for consideration. These were independently reviewed for consensus inclusion in a final framework by an international panel of eight expert.

resultsTEHAI includes three main components: capability, utility and adoption. The emphasis on translational and ethical features of the model development and deployment distinguishes TEHAI from other evaluation instruments. In specific, the evaluation components can be applied at any stage of the development and deployment of the AI system. DISCUSSION: One major limitation of existing reporting or evaluation frameworks is their narrow focus. TEHAI, because of its strong foundation in translation research models and an emphasis on safety, translational value and generalisability, not only has a theoretical basis but also practical application to assessing real-world systems.

conclusionThe translational research theoretic approach used to develop TEHAI should see it having application not just for evaluation of clinical AI in research settings, but more broadly to guide evaluation of working clinical systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareProgram EvaluationHealth Facilitiesartificial intelligencedata sciencehealth services researchinformaticsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID34642177
PMCPMC8513218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.