Use of artificial intelligence for cancer clinical trial enrollment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:16
|
作者
Chow, Ronald [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Midroni, Julie [1 ]
Kaur, Jagdeep [2 ]
Boldt, Gabriel [2 ]
Liu, Geoffrey [1 ]
Eng, Lawson [1 ]
Liu, Fei-Fei [1 ]
Haibe-Kains, Benjamin [1 ]
Lock, Michael [2 ]
Raman, Srinivas [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Univ Hlth Network, Temerty Fac Med, Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Western Ontario, London Hlth Sci Ctr, Schulich Sch Med & Dent, London Reg Canc Program, London, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Inst Biomed Engn, Fac Appl Sci & Engn, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Univ Hlth Network, Temerty Fac Med, Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada
来源
关键词
SELECTION; QUALITY; TOOL;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djad013
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) for cancer clinical trial enrollment and its predictive accuracy in identifying eligible patients for inclusion in such trials. Methods Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched until June 2022. Articles were included if they reported on AI actively being used in the clinical trial enrollment process. Narrative synthesis was conducted among all extracted data: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. For studies where the 2x2 contingency table could be calculated or supplied by authors, a meta-analysis to calculate summary statistics was conducted using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics curve model. Results Ten articles reporting on more than 50 000 patients in 19 datasets were included. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity exceeded 80% in all but 1 dataset. Positive predictive value exceeded 80% in 5 of 17 datasets. Negative predictive value exceeded 80% in all datasets. Summary sensitivity was 90.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.9% to 97.4%); summary specificity was 99.3% (95% CI = 81.8% to 99.9%). Conclusions AI demonstrated comparable, if not superior, performance to manual screening for patient enrollment into cancer clinical trials. As well, AI is highly efficient, requiring less time and human resources to screen patients. AI should be further investigated and implemented for patient recruitment into cancer clinical trials. Future research should validate the use of AI for clinical trials enrollment in less resource-rich regions and ensure broad inclusion for generalizability to all sexes, ages, and ethnicities.
引用
收藏
页码:365 / 374
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Artificial intelligence as diagnostic modality for keratoconus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Afifah, Azzahra
    Syafira, Fara
    Afladhanti, Putri Mahirah
    Dharmawidiarini, Dini
    JOURNAL OF TAIBAH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2024, 19 (02): : 296 - 303
  • [32] Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kolbinger, Fiona R.
    Veldhuizen, Gregory P.
    Zhu, Jiefu
    Truhn, Daniel
    Kather, Jakob Nikolas
    COMMUNICATIONS MEDICINE, 2024, 4 (01):
  • [33] Artificial Intelligence for Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Mirza, Fatima N.
    Haq, Zaim
    Abdi, Parsa
    Diaz, Michael J.
    Libby, Tiffany J.
    DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, 2024, 50 (09) : 799 - 806
  • [34] Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Webster, Emily M.
    Ahsan, Muhammad Danyal
    Perez, Luiza
    Levi, Sarah R.
    Thomas, Charlene
    Christos, Paul
    Hickner, Andy
    Hamilton, Jada G.
    Babagbemi, Kemi
    Cantillo, Evelyn
    Holcomb, Kevin
    Chapman-Davis, Eloise
    Sharaf, Ravi N.
    Frey, Melissa K.
    JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS, 2023, 7 : e2300123
  • [35] Chatbot Artificial Intelligence for Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Webster, Emily M.
    Ahsan, Muhammad Danyal
    Perez, Luiza
    Levi, Sarah R.
    Thomas, Charlene
    Christos, Paul
    Hickner, Andy
    Hamilton, Jada G.
    Babagbemi, Kemi
    Cantillo, Evelyn
    Holcomb, Kevin
    Chapman-Davis, Eloise
    Sharaf, Ravi N.
    Frey, Melissa K.
    JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS, 2023, 7
  • [36] A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Dual Enrollment Research
    Schaller, Tracey King
    Routon, P. Wesley
    Partridge, Mark Allen
    Berry, Reanna
    JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION-RESEARCH THEORY & PRACTICE, 2023,
  • [37] Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Real World Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Wei, Mike
    Fay, Shmuel
    Yung, Diana
    Ladabaum, Uri
    Kopylov, Uri
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 118 (10): : S264 - S265
  • [38] Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Nabizadeh, Fardin
    Ramezannezhad, Elham
    Kargar, Amirhosein
    Sharafi, Amir Mohammad
    Ghaderi, Ali
    NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 44 (02) : 499 - 517
  • [39] Detection of cerebral aneurysms using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Din, Munaib
    Agarwal, Siddharth
    Grzeda, Mariusz
    Wood, David A.
    Modat, Marc
    Booth, Thomas C.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY, 2023, 15 (03) : 262 - +
  • [40] The predictive performance of artificial intelligence on the outcome of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yang, Yujia
    Tang, Li
    Deng, Yiting
    Li, Xuzi
    Luo, Anling
    Zhang, Zhao
    He, Li
    Zhu, Cairong
    Zhou, Muke
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2023, 17