Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104535›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2022

Moving towards vertically integrated artificial intelligence development.

Joe Zhang, Sanjay Budhdeo, Wasswa William, Paul Cerrato, Haris Shuaib, Harpreet Sood, Hutan Ashrafian, John Halamka, James T Teo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Machine Learning Operations in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. On the Analyses of Medical Images Using Traditional Machine Learning Techniques and Convolutional Neural Networks.Archives of computational methods in engineering : state of the art reviews · 2023
    Article
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

9 authors.

Joe ZhangInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK. joe.zhang@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6040-2122
Sanjay BudhdeoDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5377-6142
Wasswa WilliamDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-1230
Paul CerratoMayo Clinic Platform, Rochester, USA.
Haris ShuaibDepartment of Clinical Scientific Computing, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6975-5960
Harpreet SoodHealth Education England, London, UK.
Hutan AshrafianInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1668-0672
John HalamkaMayo Clinic Platform, Rochester, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2305-6755
James T TeoLondon Medical Imaging & AI Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6899-8319

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substantial interest and investment in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) research has not resulted in widespread translation to deployed AI solutions. Current attention has focused on bias and explainability in AI algorithm development, external validity and model generalisability, and lack of equity and representation in existing data. While of great importance, these considerations also reflect a model-centric approach seen in published clinical AI research, which focuses on optimising architecture and performance of an AI model on best available datasets. However, even robustly built models using state-of-the-art algorithms may fail once tested in realistic environments due to unpredictability of real-world conditions, out-of-dataset scenarios, characteristics of deployment infrastructure, and lack of added value to clinical workflows relative to cost and potential clinical risks. In this perspective, we define a vertically integrated approach to AI development that incorporates early, cross-disciplinary, consideration of impact evaluation, data lifecycles, and AI production, and explore its implementation in two contrasting AI development pipelines: a scalable "AI factory" (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States), and an end-to-end cervical cancer screening platform for resource poor settings (Paps AI, Mbarara, Uganda). We provide practical recommendations for implementers, and discuss future challenges and novel approaches (including a decentralised federated architecture being developed in the NHS (AI4VBH, London, UK)). Growth in global clinical AI research continues unabated, and introduction of vertically integrated teams and development practices can increase the translational potential of future clinical AI projects.

Identifiers

PMID36104535
PMCPMC9474277

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.