AI holds the potential to transform healthcare, promising improvements in patient care. Yet, realizing this potential is hampered by over-reliance on limited datasets and a lack of transparency in validation processes. To overcome these obstacles, we advocate the creation of a detailed registry for AI algorithms. This registry would document the development, training, and validation of AI models, ensuring scientific integrity and transparency. Additionally, it would serve as a platform for peer review and ethical oversight. By bridging the gap between scientific validation and regulatory approval, such as by the FDA, we aim to enhance the integrity and trustworthiness of AI applications in healthcare.

@en

Despite artificial intelligence (AI) technology progresses at unprecedented rate, our ability to translate these advancements into clinical value and adoption at the bedside remains comparatively limited. This paper reviews the current use of implementation outcomes in randomized controlled trials evaluating AI-based clinical decision support and found limited adoption. To advance trust and clinical adoption of AI, there is a need to bridge the gap between traditional quantitative metrics and implementation outcomes to better grasp the reasons behind the success or failure of AI systems and improve their translation into clinical value.

@en

This scoping review focuses on the essential role of models for causal inference in shaping actionable artificial intelligence (AI) designed to aid clinicians in decision-making. The objective was to identify and evaluate the reporting quality of studies introducing models for causal inference in intensive care units (ICUs), and to provide recommendations to improve the future landscape of research practices in this domain. To achieve this, we searched various databases including Embase, MEDLINE ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, and the ACM Digital Library. Studies involving models for causal inference addressing time-varying treatments in the adult ICU were reviewed. Data extraction encompassed the study settings and methodologies applied. Furthermore, we assessed reporting quality of target trial components (i.e., eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, follow-up period, outcome, and analysis plan) and main causal assumptions (i.e., conditional exchangeability, positivity, and consistency). Among the 2184 titles screened, 79 studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodologies used were G methods (61%) and reinforcement learning methods (39%). Studies considered both static (51%) and dynamic treatment regimes (49%). Only 30 (38%) of the studies reported all five target trial components, and only seven (9%) studies mentioned all three causal assumptions. To achieve actionable AI in the ICU, we advocate careful consideration of the causal question of interest, describing this research question as a target trial emulation, usage of appropriate causal inference methods, and acknowledgement (and examination of potential violations of) the causal assumptions.

@en

Artificial intelligence (AI) research in the intensive care unit (ICU) mainly focuses on developing models (from linear regression to deep learning) to predict out-
comes, such as mortality or sepsis [1, 2]. However, there is another important aspect of AI that is typically not framed as AI (although it may be more worthy of the name), which is the prediction of patient outcomes or events that would result from different actions, known as causal inference [3, 4]. This aspect of AI is crucial for decision-making in the ICU. To emphasize the impor- tance of causal inference, we propose to refer to any data- driven model used for causal inference tasks as ‘action- able AI’, as opposed to ‘predictive AI’, and discuss how these models could provide meaningful decision support in the ICU.@en

Background: Timely identification of deteriorating COVID-19 patients is needed to guide changes in clinical management and admission to intensive care units (ICUs). There is significant concern that widely used Early warning scores (EWSs) underestimate illness severity in COVID-19 patients and therefore, we developed an early warning model specifically for COVID-19 patients. Methods: We retrospectively collected electronic medical record data to extract predictors and used these to fit a random forest model. To simulate the situation in which the model would have been developed after the first and implemented during the second COVID-19 ‘wave’ in the Netherlands, we performed a temporal validation by splitting all included patients into groups admitted before and after August 1, 2020. Furthermore, we propose a method for dynamic model updating to retain model performance over time. We evaluated model discrimination and calibration, performed a decision curve analysis, and quantified the importance of predictors using SHapley Additive exPlanations values. Results: We included 3514 COVID-19 patient admissions from six Dutch hospitals between February 2020 and May 2021, and included a total of 18 predictors for model fitting. The model showed a higher discriminative performance in terms of partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.82 [0.80–0.84]) compared to the National early warning score (0.72 [0.69–0.74]) and the Modified early warning score (0.67 [0.65–0.69]), a greater net benefit over a range of clinically relevant model thresholds, and relatively good calibration (intercept = 0.03 [− 0.09 to 0.14], slope = 0.79 [0.73–0.86]). Conclusions: This study shows the potential benefit of moving from early warning models for the general inpatient population to models for specific patient groups. Further (independent) validation of the model is needed.

@en