RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Artificial Intelligence Applications for COVID-19 in Intensive Care and Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.15.21251727
DO 10.1101/2021.02.15.21251727
A1 Chee, Marcel Lucas
A1 Ong, Marcus Eng Hock
A1 Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid
A1 Zhang, Zhongheng
A1 Lim, Shir Lynn
A1 Ho, Andrew Fu Wah
A1 Liu, Nan
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/18/2021.02.15.21251727.abstract
AB Background Little is known about the role of artificial intelligence (AI) as a decisive technology in the clinical management of COVID-19 patients. We aimed to systematically review and critically appraise the current evidence on AI applications for COVID-19 in intensive care and emergency settings, focusing on methods, reporting standards, and clinical utility.Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library databases from inception to 1 October 2020, without language restrictions. We included peer-reviewed original studies that applied AI for COVID-19 patients, healthcare workers, or health systems in intensive care, emergency or prehospital settings. We assessed predictive modelling studies using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) and a modified TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) statement for AI. We critically appraised the methodology and key findings of all other studies.Results Of fourteen eligible studies, eleven developed prognostic or diagnostic AI predictive models, all of which were assessed to be at high risk of bias. Common pitfalls included inadequate sample sizes, poor handling of missing data, failure to account for censored participants, and weak validation of models. Studies had low adherence to reporting guidelines, with particularly poor reporting on model calibration and blinding of outcome and predictor assessment. Of the remaining three studies, two evaluated the prognostic utility of deep learning-based lung segmentation software and one studied an AI-based system for resource optimisation in the ICU. These studies had similar issues in methodology, validation, and reporting.Conclusions Current AI applications for COVID-19 are not ready for deployment in acute care settings, given their limited scope and poor quality. Our findings underscore the need for improvements to facilitate safe and effective clinical adoption of AI applications, for and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Duke-NUS Signature Research Programme funded by the Ministry of Health, Singapore.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This is a systematic review, thus the IRB approval was not required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.