Abstract P194: Artificial Intelligence-Powered Non-Invasive and Frequency-Tuned Electromagnetic Field Therapy Improves Upper Extremity Motor Function in Sub-Acute Stroke Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in the Diagnosis and Management of Stroke: A Narrative Review of United States Food and Drug Administration-Approved Technologies

Stroke is an emergency in which delays in treatment can lead to significant loss of neurological function and be fatal. Technologies that increase the speed and accuracy of stroke diagnosis or assist in post-stroke rehabilitation can improve patient outcomes. No resource exists that comprehensively assesses artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-enabled technologies indicated for the management of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. We queried a United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database, along with PubMed and private company websites, to identify the recent literature assessing the clinical performance of FDA-approved AI/ML-enabled technologies. The FDA has approved 22 AI/ML-enabled technologies that triage brain imaging for more immediate diagnosis or promote post-stroke neurological/functional recovery. Technologies that assist with diagnosis predominantly use convolutional neural networks to identify abnormal brain images (e.g., CT perfusion). These technologies perform comparably to neuroradiologists, improve clinical workflows (e.g., time from scan acquisition to reading), and improve patient outcomes (e.g., days spent in the neurological ICU). Two devices are indicated for post-stroke rehabilitation by leveraging neuromodulation techniques. Multiple FDA-approved technologies exist that can help clinicians better diagnose and manage stroke. This review summarizes the most up-to-date literature regarding the functionality, performance, and utility of these technologies so clinicians can make informed decisions when using them in practice.

Randomized Controlled Trials of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The number of artificial intelligence (AI) studies in medicine has exponentially increased recently. However, there is no clear quantification of the clinical benefits of implementing AI-assisted tools in patient care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AI-assisted tools to characterize their performance in clinical practice.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant RCTs published up to July 2021 and comparing the performance of AI-assisted tools with conventional clinical management without AI assistance. We evaluated the primary end points of each study to determine their clinical relevance. This systematic review was conducted following the updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines.

RESULTS

Among the 11,839 articles retrieved, only 39 (0.33%) RCTs were included. These RCTs were conducted in an approximately equal distribution from North America, Europe, and Asia. AI-assisted tools were implemented in 13 different clinical specialties. Most RCTs were published in the field of gastroenterology, with 15 studies on AI-assisted endoscopy. Most RCTs studied biosignal-based AI-assisted tools, and a minority of RCTs studied AI-assisted tools drawn from clinical data. In 77% (30/39) of the RCTs, AI-assisted interventions outperformed usual clinical care, and clinically relevant outcomes improved with AI-assisted intervention in 70% (21/30) of the studies. Small sample size and single-center design limited the generalizability of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is growing evidence supporting the implementation of AI-assisted tools in daily clinical practice; however, the number of available RCTs is limited and heterogeneous. More RCTs of AI-assisted tools integrated into clinical practice are needed to advance the role of AI in medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021286539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=286539.