4.5 Review

Charting a path forward for clinical research in artificial intelligence and gastroenterology

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 4-12

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.13974

Keywords

CONSORT‐ AI; deep learning; guidelines; machine learning; SPIRIT‐ AI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gastroenterology has been at the forefront of integrating AI model development with clinical trial validation, with several initiatives underway to provide guidance on AI-specific study design and reporting. The rapid advancement of AI applications in clinical medicine highlights the need for clear guidance on trial design and reporting.
Gastroenterology has been an early leader in bridging the gap between artificial intelligence (AI) model development and clinical trial validation, and in recent years we have seen the publication of several randomized clinical trials examining the role of AI in gastroenterology. As AI applications for clinical medicine advance rapidly, there is a clear need for guidance surrounding AI-specific study design, evaluation, comparison, analysis and reporting of results. Several initiatives are in the publication or pre-publication phase including AI-specific amendments to minimum reporting guidelines for clinical trials, society task force initiatives aimed at priority use cases and research priorities, and minimum reporting guidelines that guide the reporting of clinical prediction models. In this paper, we examine applications of AI in clinical trials and discuss elements of newly published AI-specific extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statements that guide clinical trial reporting and development. We then review AI applications at the pre-trial level in both endoscopy and other subfields of gastroenterology and explore areas where further guidance is needed to supplement the current guidance available at the pre-trial level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available