Digital health solutions that operate with or without artificial intelligence (D/AI) raise several responsibility challenges. Though many frameworks and tools have been developed, determining what principles should be translated into practice remains under debate. This scoping review aims to provide policymakers with a rigorous body of knowledge by asking: 1) what kinds of practice-oriented tools are available?; 2) on what principles do they predominantly rely?; and 3) what are their limitations?
We searched six academic and three grey literature databases for practice-oriented tools, defined as frameworks and/or sets of principles with clear operational explanations, published in English or French from 2015 to 2021. Characteristics of the tools were qualitatively coded and variations across the dataset identified through descriptive statistics and a network analysis.
A total of 56 tools met our inclusion criteria: 19 health-specific tools (33.9%) and 37 generic tools (66.1%). They adopt a normative (57.1%), reflective (35.7%), operational (3.6%), or mixed approach (3.6%) to guide developers (14.3%), managers (16.1%), end users (10.7%), policymakers (5.4%) or multiple groups (53.6%). The frequency of 40 principles varies greatly across tools (from 0% for ‘environmental sustainability’ to 83.8% for ‘transparency’). While 50% or more of the generic tools promote up to 19 principles, 50% or more of the health-specific tools promote 10 principles, and 50% or more of all tools disregard 21 principles. In contrast to the scattered network of principles proposed by academia, the business sector emphasizes closely connected principles. Few tools rely on a formal methodology (17.9%).
Despite a lack of consensus, there is a solid knowledge-basis for policymakers to anchor their role in such a dynamic field. Because several tools lack rigour and ignore key social, economic, and environmental issues, an integrated and methodologically sound approach to responsibility in D/AI solutions is warranted.
Artificial intelligence ethics; Digital health policy; Environmental sustainability; Health system sustainability; Innovation policy; Network analysis; Responsible innovation in health; Responsible research and innovation.
Medulloblastomas are a major cause of cancer-related mortality in the pediatric population. Four molecular groups have been identified, and these molecular groups drive risk stratification, prognostic modeling, and the development of novel treatment modalities. It has been demonstrated that radiomics-based machine learning (ML) models are effective at predicting the diagnosis, molecular class, and grades of CNS tumors.
To assess radiomics-based ML models’ diagnostic performance in predicting medulloblastoma subgroups and the methodological quality of the studies.
Material and methods:
A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed; the last search was conducted on 1 May 2022. Studies that predicted all four medulloblastoma subgroups in patients with histopathologically confirmed medulloblastoma and reporting area under the curve (AUC) values were included in the study. The quality assessments were conducted according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). A meta-analysis of radiomics-based ML studies’ diagnostic performance for the preoperative evaluation of medulloblastoma subgrouping was performed.
Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding patient selection, two studies indicated an unclear risk of bias according to the QUADAS-2. The five studies had an average CLAIM score and compliance score of 23.2 and 0.57, respectively. The meta-analysis showed pooled AUCs of 0.88, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.88 for WNT, SHH, group 3, and group 4 for classification, respectively.
Radiomics-based ML studies have good classification performance in predicting medulloblastoma subgroups, with AUCs >0.80 in every subgroup. To be applied to clinical practice, they need methodological quality improvement and stability.
Medulloblastoma; artificial intelligence; deep learning; machine learning; radiomics.