Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36776483›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2023

Artificial intelligence based software facilitates spirometry quality control in asthma and COPD clinical trials.

Eva Topole, Sonia Biondaro, Isabella Montagna, Sandrine Corre, Massimo Corradi, Sanja Stanojevic, Brian Graham, Nilakash Das, Kevin Ray, Marko Topalovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Eva TopoleGlobal Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A., Parma, Italy.
Sonia BiondaroGlobal Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A., Parma, Italy.
Isabella MontagnaGlobal Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A., Parma, Italy.
Sandrine CorreGlobal Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici, S.p.A., Parma, Italy.
Massimo CorradiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Sanja StanojevicDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Brian GrahamDivision of Respirology, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Nilakash DasLaboratory of Respiratory Diseases and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Chronic Diseases Metabolism and Ageing, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8960-7188
Kevin RayArtiQ NV, Leuven, Belgium.
Marko TopalovicArtiQ NV, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale: Acquiring high-quality spirometry data in clinical trials is important, particularly when using forced expiratory volume in 1 s or forced vital capacity as primary end-points. In addition to quantitative criteria, the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) standards include subjective evaluation which introduces inter-rater variability and potential mistakes. We explored the value of artificial intelligence (AI)-based software (ArtiQ.QC) to assess spirometry quality and compared it to traditional over-reading control. Methods: A random sample of 2000 sessions (8258 curves) was selected from Chiesi COPD and asthma trials (n=1000 per disease). Acceptability using the 2005 ATS/ERS standards was determined by over-reader review and by ArtiQ.QC. Additionally, three respiratory physicians jointly reviewed a subset of curves (n=150). Results: The majority of curves (n=7267, 88%) were of good quality. The AI agreed with over-readers in 91% of cases, with 97% sensitivity and 93% positive predictive value. Performance was significantly better in the asthma group. In the revised subset, n=50 curves were repeated to assess intra-rater reliability (κ=0.83, 0.86 and 0.80 for each of the three reviewers). All reviewers agreed on 63% of 100 unique tests (κ=0.5). When reviewers set the consensus (gold standard), individual agreement with it was 88%, 94% and 70%. The agreement between AI and "gold-standard" was 73%; over-reader agreement was 46%. Conclusion: AI-based software can be used to measure spirometry data quality with comparable accuracy as experts. The assessment is a subjective exercise, with intra- and inter-rater variability even when the criteria are defined very precisely and objectively. By providing consistent results and immediate feedback to the sites, AI may benefit clinical trial conduct and variability reduction.

Identifiers

PMID36776483
PMCPMC9907146

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.