Using Artificial Intelligence-based Methods to Address the Placebo Response in Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith EA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8970233 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan-Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Using Artificial Intelligence-based Methods to Address the Placebo Response in Clinical Trials.
Smith Erica A EA Horan William P WP Demolle Dominique D Schueler Peter P Fu Dong-Jing DJ Anderson Ariana E AE Geraci Joseph J Butlen-Ducuing Florence F Link Jasmine J Khin Ni A NA Morlock Robert R Alphs Larry D LD
Innovations in clinical neuroscience 20220101 1-3
The placebo response is a highly complex psychosocial-biological phenomenon that has challenged drug development for decades, particularly in neurological and psychiatric disease. While decades of research have aimed to understand clinical trial factors that contribute to the placebo response, a comprehensive solution to manage the placebo response in drug development has yet to emerge. Advanced data analytic techniques, such as artificial intelligence (AI), might be needed to take the next leap ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Clinical research relies on high-quality patient data, however, obtaining big data sets is costly and access to existing data is often hindered by privacy and regulatory concerns. Synthetic data generation holds the promise of effectively bypassing these boundaries allowing for simplified data accessibility and the prospect of synthetic control cohorts. We employed two different methodologies of generative artificial intelligence - CTAB-GAN+ and normalizing flows (NFlow) - to synthesize patient data derived from 1606 patients with acute myeloid leukemia, a heterogeneous hematological malignancy, that were treated within four multicenter clinical trials. Both generative models accurately captured distributions of demographic, laboratory, molecular and cytogenetic variables, as well as patient outcomes yielding high performance scores regarding fidelity and usability of both synthetic cohorts (n = 1606 each). Survival analysis demonstrated close resemblance of survival curves between original and synthetic cohorts. Inter-variable relationships were preserved in univariable outcome analysis enabling explorative analysis in our synthetic data. Additionally, training sample privacy is safeguarded mitigating possible patient re-identification, which we quantified using Hamming distances. We provide not only a proof-of-concept for synthetic data generation in multimodal clinical data for rare diseases, but also full public access to synthetic data sets to foster further research.
| S-EPMC10954666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Precision medicine has the potential to revolutionize the way cardiovascular diseases are diagnosed, predicted, and treated by tailoring treatment strategies to the individual characteristics of each patient. Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently emerged as a promising tool for improving the accuracy and efficiency of precision cardiovascular medicine. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify and summarize the current state of the literature on the use of AI in precision cardiovascular medicine. A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Scopes, Google Scholar, and PubMed, was conducted to identify relevant studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 28 studies were included in the review. We found that AI is being increasingly applied in various areas of cardiovascular medicine, including the diagnosis, prognosis of cardiovascular diseases, risk prediction and stratification, and treatment planning. As a result, most of these studies focused on prediction (50%), followed by diagnosis (21%), phenotyping (14%), and risk stratification (14%). A variety of machine learning models were utilized in these studies, with logistic regression being the most used (36%), followed by random forest (32%), support vector machine (25%), and deep learning models such as neural networks (18%). Other models, such as hierarchical clustering (11%), Cox regression (11%), and natural language processing (4%), were also utilized. The data sources used in these studies included electronic health records (79%), imaging data (43%), and omics data (4%). We found that AI is being increasingly applied in various areas of cardiovascular medicine, including the diagnosis, prognosis of cardiovascular diseases, risk prediction and stratification, and treatment planning. The results of the review showed that AI has the potential to improve the performance of cardiovascular disease diagnosis and prognosis, as well as to identify individuals at high risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. However, further research is needed to fully evaluate the clinical utility and effectiveness of AI-based approaches in precision cardiovascular medicine. Overall, our review provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in the field of AI-based methods for precision cardiovascular medicine and offered new insights for researchers interested in this research area.
| S-EPMC10455092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPsychotic disorders are major psychiatric disorders that can impact multiple domains including physical, social, and psychological functioning within individuals with these conditions. Being able to better predict the outcomes of psychotic disorders will allow clinicians to identify illness subgroups and optimize treatment strategies in a timely manner.ObjectiveIn this scoping review, we aimed to examine the accuracy of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods in predicting the clinical outcomes of patients with psychotic disorders as well as determine the relevant predictors of these outcomes.MethodsThis review was guided by the PRISMA Guidelines for Scoping Reviews. Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant published articles in English until 1 February 2024.ResultsThirty articles were included in this review. These studies were mainly conducted in the West (63%) and Asia (37%) and published within the last 5 years (83.3%). The clinical outcomes included symptomatic improvements, illness course, and social functioning. The machine learning models utilized data from various sources including clinical, cognitive, and biological variables such as genetic, neuroimaging measures. In terms of main machine learning models used, the most common approaches were support vector machine, random forest, logistic regression, and linear regression models. No specific machine learning approach outperformed the other approaches consistently across the studies, and an overall range of predictive accuracy was observed with an AUC from 0.58 to 0.95. Specific predictors of clinical outcomes included demographic characteristics (gender, socioeconomic status, accommodation, education, and employment); social factors (activity level and interpersonal relationships); illness features (number of relapses, duration of relapses, hospitalization rates, cognitive impairments, and negative and disorganization symptoms); treatment (prescription of first-generation antipsychotics, high antipsychotic doses, clozapine, use of electroconvulsive therapy, and presence of metabolic syndrome); and structural and functional neuroimaging abnormalities, especially involving the temporal and frontal brain regions.ConclusionsThe current review highlights the potential and need to further refine AI and machine learning models in parsing out the complex interplay of specific variables that contribute to the clinical outcome prediction of psychotic disorders.
| S-EPMC11430394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials (RCT) in major depressive disorders (MDD), treatment response (TR) is estimated by the change from baseline at study-end (EOS) of the scores of clinical scales used for assessing disease severity. Treatment effect (TE) is estimated by the baseline-adjusted difference at EOS of TR between active treatments and placebo.The TE is function of treatment-specific and, non-specific (NSRT) effect (referred as placebo effect), and placebo response. The conventional statistical approaches used to estimate TE does not account for the potentially confounding effect of NSRT. This pragmatic approach is equivalent to assume that TE is independent of NSRT even if this assumption is not true, leading to potential risks of inflating false negative/positive results in presence of high proportion of subjects with high/low NSRT.The objective of this study was to develop a model informed framework to analyze the outcomes of RCTs using data driven models, non-linear-mixed effect approach, artificial intelligence, and propensity score weighted methodology (PSW) to control the confounding effect of treatment non-specific response on the estimated TE. The secondary objective was to explore the impact of relevant covariates (including the assessment of a dose-response relationship) on the outcomes of pooled data from two RCTs.The proposed PSW approach provides a critical tool for controlling the confounding effect of treatment non-specific response, to increase signal detection and to provide a reliable estimate of the 'true' treatment effect by controlling false negative results associated with excessively high treatment non-specific response.
| S-EPMC11631816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleAcquiring high-quality spirometry data in clinical trials is important, particularly when using forced expiratory volume in 1 s or forced vital capacity as primary end-points. In addition to quantitative criteria, the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) standards include subjective evaluation which introduces inter-rater variability and potential mistakes. We explored the value of artificial intelligence (AI)-based software (ArtiQ.QC) to assess spirometry quality and compared it to traditional over-reading control.MethodsA random sample of 2000 sessions (8258 curves) was selected from Chiesi COPD and asthma trials (n=1000 per disease). Acceptability using the 2005 ATS/ERS standards was determined by over-reader review and by ArtiQ.QC. Additionally, three respiratory physicians jointly reviewed a subset of curves (n=150).ResultsThe majority of curves (n=7267, 88%) were of good quality. The AI agreed with over-readers in 91% of cases, with 97% sensitivity and 93% positive predictive value. Performance was significantly better in the asthma group. In the revised subset, n=50 curves were repeated to assess intra-rater reliability (κ=0.83, 0.86 and 0.80 for each of the three reviewers). All reviewers agreed on 63% of 100 unique tests (κ=0.5). When reviewers set the consensus (gold standard), individual agreement with it was 88%, 94% and 70%. The agreement between AI and "gold-standard" was 73%; over-reader agreement was 46%.ConclusionAI-based software can be used to measure spirometry data quality with comparable accuracy as experts. The assessment is a subjective exercise, with intra- and inter-rater variability even when the criteria are defined very precisely and objectively. By providing consistent results and immediate feedback to the sites, AI may benefit clinical trial conduct and variability reduction.
| S-EPMC9907146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAll polypeptide backbones have the potential to form amyloid fibrils, which are associated with a number of degenerative disorders. However, the likelihood that amyloidosis would actually occur under physiological conditions depends largely on the amino acid composition of a protein. We explore using a naive Bayesian classifier and a weighted decision tree for predicting the amyloidogenicity of immunoglobulin sequences.ResultsThe average accuracy based on leave-one-out (LOO) cross validation of a Bayesian classifier generated from 143 amyloidogenic sequences is 60.84%. This is consistent with the average accuracy of 61.15% for a holdout test set comprised of 103 AM and 28 non-amyloidogenic sequences. The LOO cross validation accuracy increases to 81.08% when the training set is augmented by the holdout test set. In comparison, the average classification accuracy for the holdout test set obtained using a decision tree is 78.64%. Non-amyloidogenic sequences are predicted with average LOO cross validation accuracies between 74.05% and 77.24% using the Bayesian classifier, depending on the training set size. The accuracy for the holdout test set was 89%. For the decision tree, the non-amyloidogenic prediction accuracy is 75.00%.ConclusionsThis exploratory study indicates that both classification methods may be promising in providing straightforward predictions on the amyloidogenicity of a sequence. Nevertheless, the number of available sequences that satisfy the premises of this study are limited, and are consequently smaller than the ideal training set size. Increasing the size of the training set clearly increases the accuracy, and the expansion of the training set to include not only more derivatives, but more alignments, would make the method more sound. The accuracy of the classifiers may also be improved when additional factors, such as structural and physico-chemical data, are considered. The development of this type of classifier has significant applications in evaluating engineered antibodies, and may be adapted for evaluating engineered proteins in general.
| S-EPMC3098112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of artificial intelligence (AI) studies in medicine has exponentially increased recently. However, there is no clear quantification of the clinical benefits of implementing AI-assisted tools in patient care.ObjectiveThis study aims to systematically review all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AI-assisted tools to characterize their performance in clinical practice.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched to identify relevant RCTs published up to July 2021 and comparing the performance of AI-assisted tools with conventional clinical management without AI assistance. We evaluated the primary end points of each study to determine their clinical relevance. This systematic review was conducted following the updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines.ResultsAmong the 11,839 articles retrieved, only 39 (0.33%) RCTs were included. These RCTs were conducted in an approximately equal distribution from North America, Europe, and Asia. AI-assisted tools were implemented in 13 different clinical specialties. Most RCTs were published in the field of gastroenterology, with 15 studies on AI-assisted endoscopy. Most RCTs studied biosignal-based AI-assisted tools, and a minority of RCTs studied AI-assisted tools drawn from clinical data. In 77% (30/39) of the RCTs, AI-assisted interventions outperformed usual clinical care, and clinically relevant outcomes improved with AI-assisted intervention in 70% (21/30) of the studies. Small sample size and single-center design limited the generalizability of these studies.ConclusionsThere is growing evidence supporting the implementation of AI-assisted tools in daily clinical practice; however, the number of available RCTs is limited and heterogeneous. More RCTs of AI-assisted tools integrated into clinical practice are needed to advance the role of AI in medicine.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021286539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=286539.
| S-EPMC9459941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Machine-learning or deep-learning algorithms for clinical diagnosis are inherently dependent on the availability of large-scale clinical datasets. Lack of such datasets and inherent problems such as overfitting often necessitate the development of innovative solutions. Probabilistic modeling closely mimics the rationale behind clinical diagnosis and represents a unique solution. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to develop and validate a probabilistic model for differential diagnosis in different medical domains. METHODS:Numerical values of symptom-disease associations were utilized to mathematically represent medical domain knowledge. These values served as the core engine for the probabilistic model. For the given set of symptoms, the model was utilized to produce a ranked list of differential diagnoses, which was compared to the differential diagnosis constructed by a physician in a consult. Practicing medical specialists were integral in the development and validation of this model. Clinical vignettes (patient case studies) were utilized to compare the accuracy of doctors and the model against the assumed gold standard. The accuracy analysis was carried out over the following metrics: top 3 accuracy, precision, and recall. RESULTS:The model demonstrated a statistically significant improvement (P=.002) in diagnostic accuracy (85%) as compared to the doctors' performance (67%). This advantage was retained across all three categories of clinical vignettes: 100% vs 82% (P<.001) for highly specific disease presentation, 83% vs 65% for moderately specific disease presentation (P=.005), and 72% vs 49% (P<.001) for nonspecific disease presentation. The model performed slightly better than the doctors' average in precision (62% vs 60%, P=.43) but there was no improvement with respect to recall (53% vs 56%, P=.27). However, neither difference was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS:The present study demonstrates a drastic improvement over previously reported results that can be attributed to the development of a stable probabilistic framework utilizing symptom-disease associations to mathematically represent medical domain knowledge. The current iteration relies on static, manually curated values for calculating the degree of association. Shifting to real-world data-derived values represents the next step in model development.
| S-EPMC7218591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEighteen-month-long randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are common for phase II and phase III drug development for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Yet, no 18-month trial has shown statistically significant outcomes favoring the test drug. We examined characteristics and underlying assumptions of these trials by assessing the placebo groups.MethodsWe searched the clinicaltrials.gov registry for randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials for AD of at least 18-month duration and extracted demographic, clinical, and trials characteristics, and change in main outcomes from the placebo groups. We obtained additional information from presentations, abstracts, publications, and sponsors.ResultsOf 23 trials identified, 11 were completed and had baseline data available; nine had follow-up data available; 17 were phase III. General inclusion criteria were very similar except that minimum Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores varied from 12 to 20. Sample sizes ranged from 402 to 1,684 for phase III trials and 80 to 400 for phase II. Cholinesterase inhibitor use was from 53% to 100%, and memantine use was from 13.5% to 78%. The AD Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) was the co-primary outcome in all trials; and activities of daily living, global severity, or global change ratings were the other co-primaries. APOE epsilon4 genotype carriers ranged from 58% to 67%; mean baseline ADAS-cog was 17.8 to 24.2. ADAS-cog worsening in the placebo groups during 18 months ranged from 4.34 to 9.10, with standard deviations from 8.17 to 9.39, increasing during 18 months.ConclusionsInclusion criteria are essentially similar to earlier 6-month and 12-month trials in which cholinesterase inhibitors were not allowed, as were mean ADAS-cog rates of change. Yet increasing variability and relatively little change overall in the ADAS-cog placebo groups, eg, about 25% of patients do not worsen by more than 1 point, might make it more unlikely than previously assumed that a modestly effective drug can be reliably recognized, especially when the drug might work only to attenuate decline in function and not to improve function. These observations would be strengthened by pooling individual trials data, and pharmaceutical sponsors should participate in such efforts.
| S-EPMC3321732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceElectroencephalograms (EEGs) are a fundamental evaluation in neurology but require special expertise unavailable in many regions of the world. Artificial intelligence (AI) has a potential for addressing these unmet needs. Previous AI models address only limited aspects of EEG interpretation such as distinguishing abnormal from normal or identifying epileptiform activity. A comprehensive, fully automated interpretation of routine EEG based on AI suitable for clinical practice is needed.ObjectiveTo develop and validate an AI model (Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG-Artificial Intelligence [SCORE-AI]) with the ability to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings and to classify abnormal EEG recordings into categories relevant for clinical decision-making: epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse.Design, setting, and participantsIn this multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, a convolutional neural network model, SCORE-AI, was developed and validated using EEGs recorded between 2014 and 2020. Data were analyzed from January 17, 2022, until November 14, 2022. A total of 30 493 recordings of patients referred for EEG were included into the development data set annotated by 17 experts. Patients aged more than 3 months and not critically ill were eligible. The SCORE-AI was validated using 3 independent test data sets: a multicenter data set of 100 representative EEGs evaluated by 11 experts, a single-center data set of 9785 EEGs evaluated by 14 experts, and for benchmarking with previously published AI models, a data set of 60 EEGs with external reference standard. No patients who met eligibility criteria were excluded.Main outcomes and measuresDiagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared with the experts and the external reference standard of patients' habitual clinical episodes obtained during video-EEG recording.ResultsThe characteristics of the EEG data sets include development data set (N = 30 493; 14 980 men; median age, 25.3 years [95% CI, 1.3-76.2 years]), multicenter test data set (N = 100; 61 men, median age, 25.8 years [95% CI, 4.1-85.5 years]), single-center test data set (N = 9785; 5168 men; median age, 35.4 years [95% CI, 0.6-87.4 years]), and test data set with external reference standard (N = 60; 27 men; median age, 36 years [95% CI, 3-75 years]). The SCORE-AI achieved high accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between 0.89 and 0.96 for the different categories of EEG abnormalities, and performance similar to human experts. Benchmarking against 3 previously published AI models was limited to comparing detection of epileptiform abnormalities. The accuracy of SCORE-AI (88.3%; 95% CI, 79.2%-94.9%) was significantly higher than the 3 previously published models (P < .001) and similar to human experts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, SCORE-AI achieved human expert level performance in fully automated interpretation of routine EEGs. Application of SCORE-AI may improve diagnosis and patient care in underserved areas and improve efficiency and consistency in specialized epilepsy centers.
| S-EPMC10282956 | biostudies-literature