Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578657›Full record

ReviewBalkan medical journal2023

Must-have Qualities of Clinical Research on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Burak Koçak, Renato Cuocolo, Daniel Pinto dos Santos, Arnaldo Stanzione, Lorenzo Ugga

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Balkan medical journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reproducibility and interpretability in radiomics: a critical assessmentDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Burak KoçakClinic of Radiology, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-7307-396X
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry University of Salerno, Baronissi, ItalyORCID 0000-0002-1452-1574
Daniel Pinto dos SantosDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, GermanyORCID 0000-0003-4785-6394
Arnaldo StanzioneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Napoli, ItalyORCID 0000-0002-7905-5789
Lorenzo UggaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Napoli, ItalyORCID 0000-0001-7811-4612

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the field of computer science, known as artificial intelligence, algorithms imitate reasoning tasks that are typically performed by humans. The techniques that allow machines to learn and get better at tasks such as recognition and prediction, which form the basis of clinical practice, are referred to as machine learning, which is a subfield of artificial intelligence. The number of artificial intelligence-and machine learnings-related publications in clinical journals has grown exponentially, driven by recent developments in computation and the accessibility of simple tools. However, clinicians are often not included in data science teams, which may limit the clinical relevance, explanability, workflow compatibility, and quality improvement of artificial intelligence solutions. Thus, this results in the language barrier between clinicians and artificial intelligence developers. Healthcare practitioners sometimes lack a basic understanding of artificial intelligence research because the approach is difficult for non-specialists to understand. Furthermore, many editors and reviewers of medical publications might not be familiar with the fundamental ideas behind these technologies, which may prevent journals from publishing high-quality artificial intelligence studies or, worse still, could allow for the publication of low-quality works. In this review, we aim to improve readers’ artificial intelligence literacy and critical thinking. As a result, we concentrated on what we consider the 10 most important qualities of artificial intelligence research: valid scientific purpose, high-quality data set, robust reference standard, robust input, no information leakage, optimal bias-variance tradeoff, proper model evaluation, proven clinical utility, transparent reporting, and open science. Before designing a study, one should have defined a sound scientific purpose. Then, it should be backed by a high-quality data set, robust input, and a solid reference standard. The artificial intelligence development pipeline should prevent information leakage. For the models, optimal bias-variance tradeoff should be achieved, and generalizability assessment must be adequately performed. The clinical value of the final models must also be established. After the study, thought should be given to transparency in publishing the process and results as well as open science for sharing data, code, and models. We hope this work may improve the artificial intelligence literacy and mindset of the readers.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningAlgorithmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID36578657
PMCPMC9874249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.