RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating the Clinical Feasibility of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Clinical Decision Support System: A Longitudinal Feasibility Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.03.21259812
DO 10.1101/2021.07.03.21259812
A1 Popescu, Christina
A1 Golden, Grace
A1 Benrimoh, David
A1 Tanguay-Sela, Myriam
A1 Slowey, Dominique
A1 Lundrigan, Eryn
A1 Williams, Jérôme
A1 Desormeau, Bennet
A1 Kardani, Divyesh
A1 Perez, Tamara
A1 Rollins, Colleen
A1 Israel, Sonia
A1 Perlman, Kelly
A1 Armstrong, Caitrin
A1 Baxter, Jacob
A1 Whitmore, Kate
A1 Fradette, Marie-Jeanne
A1 Felcarek-Hope, Kaelan
A1 Soufi, Ghassen
A1 Fratila, Robert
A1 Mehltretter, Joseph
A1 Looper, Karl
A1 Steiner, Warren
A1 Rej, Soham
A1 Karp, Jordan F.
A1 Heller, Katherine
A1 Parikh, Sagar V.
A1 McGuire-Snieckus, Rebecca
A1 Ferrari, Manuela
A1 Margolese, Howard
A1 Turecki, Gustavo
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/07/2021.07.03.21259812.abstract
AB Objective We examine the feasibility of an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support system (CDSS), which combines the operationalized 2016 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments guidelines with a neural-network based individualized treatment remission prediction.Methods Due to COVID-19, the study was adapted to be completed entirely at a distance. Seven physicians recruited outpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) as per DSM-V criteria. Patients completed a minimum of one visit without the CDSS (baseline) and two subsequent visits where the CDSS was used by the physician (visit 1 and 2). The primary outcome of interest was change in session length after CDSS introduction, as a proxy for feasibility. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.Results Seventeen patients enrolled in the study; 14 completed. There was no significant difference between appointment length between visits (introduction of the tool did not increase session length). 92.31% of patients and 71.43% of physicians felt that the tool was easy to use. 61.54% of the patients and 71.43% of the physicians rated that they trusted the CDSS. 46.15% of patients felt that the patient-clinician relationship significantly or somewhat improved, while the other 53.85% felt that it did not change.Conclusions Our results confirm the primary hypothesis that the integration of the tool does not increase appointment length. Findings suggest the CDSS is easy to use and may have some positive effects on the patient-physician relationship. The CDSS is feasible and ready for effectiveness studies.Competing Interest StatementConflicts of Interest: D.B., C.A., R.F., S.I., K.P., M.C. are shareholders and either employees, directors, or founders of Aifred Health. D.K., J.M., are employed by Aifred Health. M.T.S. is employed by Aifred Health and is an options holder. G.G., C.P., K.F.H., G.S., E.L., J.B., J.W., T.P., D.S., B.D., K.W., C.R. have been or are employed or financially compensated by Aifred Health. S.P., K.H., J.K. are members of Aifred Health's scientific advisory board and have received payments or options. W.S., S.B., M.S. are members of the data safety monitoring board. H.M. has received honoraria, sponsorship or grants for participation in speaker bureaus, consultation, advisory board meetings and clinical research from Acadia, Amgen, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen-Ortho, Mylan, Otsuka-Lundbeck, Perdue, Pfizer, Shire and SyneuRx International. S.R reports owning shares in Aifred Health. All other authors report no relevant conflicts.Clinical TrialNCT04061642Funding StatementFunding sources: Aifred Health Inc.; Innovation Research Assistance Program, National Research Council Canada; ERA-Permed Vision 2020 supporting IMADAPT; Government of Quebec Nova Science; MEDTEQ COVID-Relief Grant.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 research was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montréal West Island Integrated University Health and Social Services Centre.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.YesInquiries regarding access to study data should be directed to the corresponding author.