Abstract
Background Recent advances in Artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to substantially improve healthcare across clinical areas. However, there are concerns health AI research may overstate the utility of newly developed systems and that certain metrics for measuring AI system performance may lead to an overly optimistic interpretation of research results. The current study aims to evaluate the relationship between researcher choice of AI performance metric and promotional language use in published abstracts.
Methods and findings This cross-sectional study evaluated the relationship between promotional language and use of composite performance metrics (AUC or F1). A total of 1200 randomly sampled health AI abstracts drawn from PubMed were evaluated for metric selection and promotional language rates. Promotional language evaluation was accomplished through the development of a customized machine learning system that identifies promotional claims in abstracts describing the results of health AI system development. The language classification system was trained with an annotated dataset of 922 sentences. Collected sentences were annotated by two raters for evidence of promotional language. The annotators achieved 94.5% agreement (κ = 0.825). Several candidate models were evaluated and, the bagged classification and regression tree (CART) achieved the highest performance at Precision = 0.92 and Recall = 0.89. The final model was used to classify individual sentences in a sample of 1200 abstracts, and a quasi-Poisson framework was used to assess the relationship between metric selection and promotional language rates. The results indicate that use of AUC predicts a 12% increase (95% CI: 5-19%, p = 0.00104) in abstract promotional language rates and that use of F1 predicts a 16% increase (95% CI: 4% to 30%, p = 0. 00996).
Conclusions Clinical trials evaluating spin, hype, or overstatement have found that the observed magnitude of increase is sufficient to induce misinterpretation of findings in researchers and clinicians. These results suggest that efforts to address hype in health AI need to attend to both underlying research methods and language choice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was provided for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study is exempt from IRB oversight.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are available upon request.
