Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38941147›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2024

Detecting Algorithmic Errors and Patient Harms for AI-Enabled Medical Devices in Randomized Controlled Trials: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Aditya U Kale, Henry David Jeffry Hogg, Russell Pearson, Ben Glocker, Su Golder, April Coombe, Justin Waring, Xiaoxuan Liu, David J Moore, Alastair K Denniston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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.

Aditya U KaleInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2186-1446
Henry David Jeffry HoggPopulation Health Science Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8044-7790
Russell PearsonMedicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-9132-8633
Ben GlockerKheiron Medical Technologies, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4897-9356
Su GolderDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8987-5211
April CoombeInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8279-3726
Justin WaringHealth Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1459-5896
Xiaoxuan LiuInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1286-0038
David J MooreInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4163-4080
Alastair K DennistonInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7849-0087

Funding

National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) medical devices have the potential to transform existing clinical workflows and ultimately improve patient outcomes. AI medical devices have shown potential for a range of clinical tasks such as diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutic decision-making such as drug dosing. There is, however, an urgent need to ensure that these technologies remain safe for all populations. Recent literature demonstrates the need for rigorous performance error analysis to identify issues such as algorithmic encoding of spurious correlations (eg, protected characteristics) or specific failure modes that may lead to patient harm. Guidelines for reporting on studies that evaluate AI medical devices require the mention of performance error analysis; however, there is still a lack of understanding around how performance errors should be analyzed in clinical studies, and what harms authors should aim to detect and report.

objectiveThis systematic review will assess the frequency and severity of AI errors and adverse events (AEs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating AI medical devices as interventions in clinical settings. The review will also explore how performance errors are analyzed including whether the analysis includes the investigation of subgroup-level outcomes.

methodsThis systematic review will identify and select RCTs assessing AI medical devices. Search strategies will be deployed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinical trial registries to identify relevant papers. RCTs identified in bibliographic databases will be cross-referenced with clinical trial registries. The primary outcomes of interest are the frequency and severity of AI errors, patient harms, and reported AEs. Quality assessment of RCTs will be based on version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Data analysis will include a comparison of error rates and patient harms between study arms, and a meta-analysis of the rates of patient harm in control versus intervention arms will be conducted if appropriate.

resultsThe project was registered on PROSPERO in February 2023. Preliminary searches have been completed and the search strategy has been designed in consultation with an information specialist and methodologist. Title and abstract screening started in September 2023. Full-text screening is ongoing and data collection and analysis began in April 2024.

conclusionsEvaluations of AI medical devices have shown promising results; however, reporting of studies has been variable. Detection, analysis, and reporting of performance errors and patient harms is vital to robustly assess the safety of AI medical devices in RCTs. Scoping searches have illustrated that the reporting of harms is variable, often with no mention of AEs. The findings of this systematic review will identify the frequency and severity of AI performance errors and patient harms and generate insights into how errors should be analyzed to account for both overall and subgroup performance.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023387747; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=387747. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51614.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEquipment and SuppliesHumansPatient HarmResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topicadverse eventsAIAI health technologyalgorithm erroralgorithmicartificial intelligencemedical devicepatient safetyrandomized controlled trialssafetysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38941147
PMCPMC11245650

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.