Applied Evidence

An FP’s guide to AI-enabled clinical decision support

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Limited analysis. Another problem that plagues many ML-based algorithms is that they have been tested on only a single data set. (Typically, a data set refers to a collection of clinical parameters from a patient population.) For example, researchers developing an algorithm might collect their data from a single health care system.

Several investigators have addressed this shortcoming by testing their software on 2 completely independent patient populations. Banda and colleagues15 recently developed a software platform to improve the detection rate in familial hypercholesterolemia, a significant cause of premature cardiovascular disease and death that affects approximately 1 of every 250 people. Despite the urgency of identifying the disorder and providing potentially lifesaving treatment, only 10% of patients receive an accurate diagnosis.16 Banda and colleagues developed a deep-learning algorithm that is far more effective than the traditional screening approach now in use.

To address the generalizability of the algorithm, it was tested on EHR data from 2 independent health care systems: Stanford Health Care and Geisinger Health System. In Stanford patients, the positive predictive value of the algorithm was 88%, with a sensitivity of 75%; it identified 84% of affected patients at the highest probability threshold. In Geisinger patients, the classifier generated a positive predictive value of 85%.

The future of these technologies

AI and ML are not panaceas that will revolutionize medicine in the near future. Likewise, the digital tools discussed in this article are not going to solve multiple complex medical problems addressed during a single office visit. But physicians who ignore mounting evidence that supports these emerging technologies will be left behind by more forward-thinking colleagues.

The best possible application of AI might save the health care sector $150 billion annually by 2026, according to an economic analysis.

A recent commentary in Gastroenterology17 sums up the situation best: “It is now too conservative to suggest that CADe [computer-assisted detection] and CADx [computer-assisted diagnosis] carry the potential to revolutionize colonoscopy. The artificial intelligence revolution has already begun.”

CORRESPONDENCE
Paul Cerrato, MA, cerrato@aol.com, pcerrato@optonline.net. John Halamka, MD, MS, john.halamka@bilh.org.

Pages

Recommended Reading

USPSTF BRCA testing recs: 2 more groups require attention
MDedge Family Medicine
Panel releases guidelines for red meat, processed meat consumption
MDedge Family Medicine
Primary care for the declining cancer survivor
MDedge Family Medicine
How to overcome barriers to exercise for cancer patients
MDedge Family Medicine
Cancer overtakes CVD as cause of death in high-income countries
MDedge Family Medicine
USPSTF recommendations on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer
MDedge Family Medicine
Disparity in endometrial cancer outcomes: What can we do?
MDedge Family Medicine
Levothyroxine dose for checkpoint inhibitor toxicity may be too high
MDedge Family Medicine
More evidence that statins reduce HCC risk
MDedge Family Medicine
ACP: Low-risk adults aged 50-75 should undergo regular screening for colorectal cancer
MDedge Family Medicine