Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients?

Abstract

Background:

Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) utilises algorithms to collect and process data and develop models to make or support decisions. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of support systems that can be superior to medical professionals without AI support in certain tasks. However, whether patients can benefit from this remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current evidence on patient-relevant benefits and harms, such as improved survival rates and reduced treatment-related complications, when healthcare professionals use ADM systems (developed using or working with AI) compared to healthcare professionals without AI-related ADM (standard care)—regardless of the clinical issues. Methods:

Following the PRISMA statement, MEDLINE and PubMed (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier) and IEEE Xplore will be searched using English free text terms in title/abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Embase Subject Headings (Emtree fields). Additional studies will be identified by contacting authors of included studies and through reference lists of included studies. Grey literature searches will be conducted in Google Scholar. Risk of bias will be assessed by using Cochrane’s RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised trials. Transparent reporting of the included studies will be assessed using the CONSORT-AI extension statement. Two researchers will screen, assess and extract from the studies independently, with a third in case of conflicts that cannot be resolved by discussion. Discussion:

It is expected that there will be a substantial shortage of suitable studies that compare healthcare professionals with and without ADM systems concerning patient-relevant endpoints. This can be attributed to the prioritisation of technical quality criteria and, in some cases, clinical parameters over patient-relevant endpoints in the development of study designs. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the identified studies will exhibit relatively poor methodological quality and provide only limited generalisable results.