Network physiology in insomnia patients: Assessment of relevant changes in network topology with interpretable machine learning models

The AI revolution in glaucoma: Bridging challenges with opportunities

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) herald transformative potentials for reshaping glaucoma clinical management, improving screening efficacy, sharpening diagnosis precision, and refining the detection of disease progression. However, incorporating AI into healthcare usages faces significant hurdles in terms of developing algorithms and putting them into practice. When creating algorithms, issues arise due to the intensive effort required to label data, inconsistent diagnostic standards, and a lack of thorough testing, which often limits the algorithms' widespread applicability. Additionally, the "black box" nature of AI algorithms may cause doctors to be wary or skeptical. When it comes to using these tools, challenges include dealing with lower-quality images in real situations and the systems' limited ability to work well with diverse ethnic groups and different diagnostic equipment. Looking ahead, new developments aim to protect data privacy through federated learning paradigms, improving algorithm generalizability by diversifying input data modalities, and augmenting datasets with synthetic imagery. The integration of smartphones appears promising for using AI algorithms in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Furthermore, bringing in large language models (LLMs) to act as interactive tool in medicine may signify a significant change in how healthcare will be delivered in the future. By navigating through these challenges and leveraging on these as opportunities, the field of glaucoma AI will not only have improved algorithmic accuracy and optimized data integration but also a paradigmatic shift towards enhanced clinical acceptance and a transformative improvement in glaucoma care.

Sampling inequalities affect generalization of neuroimaging-based diagnostic classifiers in psychiatry

BACKGROUND

The development of machine learning models for aiding in the diagnosis of mental disorder is recognized as a significant breakthrough in the field of psychiatry. However, clinical practice of such models remains a challenge, with poor generalizability being a major limitation.

METHODS

Here, we conducted a pre-registered meta-research assessment on neuroimaging-based models in the psychiatric literature, quantitatively examining global and regional sampling issues over recent decades, from a view that has been relatively underexplored. A total of 476 studies (n = 118,137) were included in the current assessment. Based on these findings, we built a comprehensive 5-star rating system to quantitatively evaluate the quality of existing machine learning models for psychiatric diagnoses.

RESULTS

A global sampling inequality in these models was revealed quantitatively (sampling Gini coefficient (G) = 0.81, p < .01), varying across different countries (regions) (e.g., China, G = 0.47; the USA, G = 0.58; Germany, G = 0.78; the UK, G = 0.87). Furthermore, the severity of this sampling inequality was significantly predicted by national economic levels (β =  - 2.75, p < .001, R²_adj = 0.40; r =  - .84, 95% CI: - .41 to - .97), and was plausibly predictable for model performance, with higher sampling inequality for reporting higher classification accuracy. Further analyses showed that lack of independent testing (84.24% of models, 95% CI: 81.0-87.5%), improper cross-validation (51.68% of models, 95% CI: 47.2-56.2%), and poor technical transparency (87.8% of models, 95% CI: 84.9-90.8%)/availability (80.88% of models, 95% CI: 77.3-84.4%) are prevailing in current diagnostic classifiers despite improvements over time. Relating to these observations, model performances were found decreased in studies with independent cross-country sampling validations (all p < .001, BF₁₀ > 15). In light of this, we proposed a purpose-built quantitative assessment checklist, which demonstrated that the overall ratings of these models increased by publication year but were negatively associated with model performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Together, improving sampling economic equality and hence the quality of machine learning models may be a crucial facet to plausibly translating neuroimaging-based diagnostic classifiers into clinical practice.

Evaluation of Risk of Bias in Neuroimaging-Based Artificial Intelligence Models for Psychiatric Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Neuroimaging-based artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic models have proliferated in psychiatry. However, their clinical applicability and reporting quality (ie, feasibility) for clinical practice have not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality of neuroimaging-based AI models for psychiatric diagnosis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

PubMed was searched for peer-reviewed, full-length articles published between January 1, 1990, and March 16, 2022. Studies aimed at developing or validating neuroimaging-based AI models for clinical diagnosis of psychiatric disorders were included. Reference lists were further searched for suitable original studies. Data extraction followed the CHARMS (Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A closed-loop cross-sequential design was used for quality control. The PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and modified CLEAR (Checklist for Evaluation of Image-Based Artificial Intelligence Reports) benchmarks were used to systematically evaluate ROB and reporting quality.

FINDINGS

A total of 517 studies presenting 555 AI models were included and evaluated. Of these models, 461 (83.1%; 95% CI, 80.0%-86.2%) were rated as having a high overall ROB based on the PROBAST. The ROB was particular high in the analysis domain, including inadequate sample size (398 of 555 models [71.7%; 95% CI, 68.0%-75.6%]), poor model performance examination (with 100% of models lacking calibration examination), and lack of handling data complexity (550 of 555 models [99.1%; 95% CI, 98.3%-99.9%]). None of the AI models was perceived to be applicable to clinical practices. Overall reporting completeness (ie, number of reported items/number of total items) for the AI models was 61.2% (95% CI, 60.6%-61.8%), and the completeness was poorest for the technical assessment domain with 39.9% (95% CI, 38.8%-41.1%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found that the clinical applicability and feasibility of neuroimaging-based AI models for psychiatric diagnosis were challenged by a high ROB and poor reporting quality. Particularly in the analysis domain, ROB in AI diagnostic models should be addressed before clinical application.

A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Toward Medical XAI

Recently, artificial intelligence and machine learning in general have demonstrated remarkable performances in many tasks, from image processing to natural language processing, especially with the advent of deep learning (DL). Along with research progress, they have encroached upon many different fields and disciplines. Some of them require high level of accountability and thus transparency, for example, the medical sector. Explanations for machine decisions and predictions are thus needed to justify their reliability. This requires greater interpretability, which often means we need to understand the mechanism underlying the algorithms. Unfortunately, the blackbox nature of the DL is still unresolved, and many machine decisions are still poorly understood. We provide a review on interpretabilities suggested by different research works and categorize them. The different categories show different dimensions in interpretability research, from approaches that provide "obviously" interpretable information to the studies of complex patterns. By applying the same categorization to interpretability in medical research, it is hoped that: 1) clinicians and practitioners can subsequently approach these methods with caution; 2) insight into interpretability will be born with more considerations for medical practices; and 3) initiatives to push forward data-based, mathematically grounded, and technically grounded medical education are encouraged.