PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Brereton, Tracey A.
AU  - Malik, Momin
AU  - Lifson, Mark A.
AU  - Greenwood, Jason D.
AU  - Peterson, Kevin J.
AU  - Overgaard, Shauna M.
TI  - The Role of AI Model Documentation in Translational Science: A Scoping Review
AID  - 10.1101/2023.01.21.23284858
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.01.21.23284858
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/23/2023.01.21.23284858.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/23/2023.01.21.23284858.full
AB  - Background Translation of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based medical modeling software (MMS) into clinical settings requires rigorous evaluation by interdisciplinary teams and across the AI lifecycle. The fragmented nature of available resources to support MMS documentation limits the transparent reporting of scientific evidence to support MMS, creating barriers and impeding the translation of software from code to bedside.Objective The aim of this paper is to scope AI/ML-based MMS documentation practices and define the role of documentation in facilitating safe and ethical MMS translation into clinical workflows.Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched using MeSH key concepts of AI/ML, ethical considerations, and explainability to identify publications detailing AI/ML-based MMS documentation, in addition to snowball sampling of selected reference lists. To include the possibility of implicit documentation practices not explicitly labeled as such, we did not use “documentation “ as a key concept but rather as an inclusion criterion. A two-stage screening process (title and abstract screening and full-text review) was conducted by an independent reviewer. A data extraction template was utilized to record publication-related information, barriers to developing ethical and explainable MMS, available standards, regulations, frameworks, or governance strategies related to documentation, and recommendations for documentation for papers that met inclusion criteria.Results Of the total 115 papers, 21 (18%) articles met the requirements for inclusion. Data regarding the current state and challenges of AI/ML-based documentation was synthesized and themes including bias, accountability, governance, and interpretability were identified.Conclusions Our findings suggest that AI/ML-based MMS documentation practice is siloed across the AI life cycle and there exists a gray area for tracking and reporting of non-regulated MMS. Recommendations from the literature call for proactive evaluation, standards, frameworks, and transparency and traceability requirements to address ethical and explainability barriers, enhance documentation efforts, provide support throughout the AI lifecycle, and promote translation of MMS. If prioritized across multidisciplinary teams and across the AI lifecycle, AI/ML-based MMS documentation may serve as a method of coordinated communication and reporting toward resolution of AI translation barriers related to bias, accountability, governance, and interpretability.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors