Dataset Information

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused on development of AI models, novel techniques, and reporting guidelines. However, little is understood about clinicians' perspectives of AI applications in medical fields including ophthalmology, particularly in light of recent regulatory guidelines. The aim for this study was to evaluate the perspectives of ophthalmologists regarding AI in 4 major eye conditions: diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract.

Methods

This was a multi-national survey of ophthalmologists between March 1st, 2020 to February 29th, 2021 disseminated via the major global ophthalmology societies. The survey was designed based on microsystem, mesosystem and macrosystem questions, and the software as a medical device (SaMD) regulatory framework chaired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Factors associated with AI adoption for ophthalmology analyzed with multivariable logistic regression random forest machine learning.

Results

One thousand one hundred seventy-six ophthalmologists from 70 countries participated with a response rate ranging from 78.8 to 85.8% per question. Ophthalmologists were more willing to use AI as clinical assistive tools (88.1%, n = 890/1,010) especially those with over 20 years' experience (OR 3.70, 95% CI: 1.10-12.5, p = 0.035), as compared to clinical decision support tools (78.8%, n = 796/1,010) or diagnostic tools (64.5%, n = 651). A majority of Ophthalmologists felt that AI is most relevant to DR (78.2%), followed by glaucoma (70.7%), AMD (66.8%), and cataract (51.4%) detection. Many participants were confident their roles will not be replaced (68.2%, n = 632/927), and felt COVID-19 catalyzed willingness to adopt AI (80.9%, n = 750/927). Common barriers to implementation include medical liability from errors (72.5%, n = 672/927) whereas enablers include improving access (94.5%, n = 876/927). Machine learning modeling predicted acceptance from participant demographics with moderate to high accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curves of 0.63-0.83.

Conclusion

Ophthalmologists are receptive to adopting AI as assistive tools for DR, glaucoma, and AMD. Furthermore, ML is a useful method that can be applied to evaluate predictive factors on clinical qualitative questionnaires. This study outlines actionable insights for future research and facilitation interventions to drive adoption and operationalization of AI tools for Ophthalmology.

SUBMITTER: Gunasekeran DV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9612721 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective.

Gunasekeran Dinesh V DV Zheng Feihui F Lim Gilbert Y S GYS Chong Crystal C Y CCY Zhang Shihao S Ng Wei Yan WY Keel Stuart S Xiang Yifan Y Park Ki Ho KH Park Sang Jun SJ Chandra Aman A Wu Lihteh L Campbel J Peter JP Lee Aaron Y AY Keane Pearse A PA Denniston Alastair A Lam Dennis S C DSC Fung Adrian T AT Chan Paul R V PRV Sadda SriniVas R SR Loewenstein Anat A Grzybowski Andrzej A Fong Kenneth C S KCS Wu Wei-Chi WC Bachmann Lucas M LM Zhang Xiulan X Yam Jason C JC Cheung Carol Y CY Pongsachareonnont Pear P Ruamviboonsuk Paisan P Raman Rajiv R Sakamoto Taiji T Habash Ranya R Girard Michael M Milea Dan D Ang Marcus M Tan Gavin S W GSW Schmetterer Leopold L Cheng Ching-Yu CY Lamoureux Ecosse E Lin Haotian H van Wijngaarden Peter P Wong Tien Y TY Ting Daniel S W DSW

Frontiers in medicine 20221013

<h4>Background</h4>Many artificial intelligence (AI) studies have focused on development of AI models, novel techniques, and reporting guidelines. However, little is understood about clinicians' perspectives of AI applications in medical fields including ophthalmology, particularly in light of recent regulatory guidelines. The aim for this study was to evaluate the perspectives of ophthalmologists regarding AI in 4 major eye conditions: diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, age-related macular de ...[more]

PMID: 36314006

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare general ophthalmologists, retina specialists, and the EyeArt Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to the clinical reference standard for detecting more than mild diabetic retinopathy (mtmDR).DesignProspective, pivotal, multicenter trial conducted from April 2017 to May 2018.ParticipantsParticipants were aged ≥ 18 years who had diabetes mellitus and underwent dilated ophthalmoscopy. A total of 521 of 893 participants met these criteria and completed the study protocol.TestingParticipants underwent 2-field fundus photography (macula centered, disc centered) for the EyeArt system, dilated ophthalmoscopy, and 4-widefield stereoscopic dilated fundus photography for reference standard grading.Main outcome measuresFor mtmDR detection, sensitivity and specificity of EyeArt gradings of 2-field, fundus photographs and ophthalmoscopy grading versus a rigorous clinical reference standard comprising Reading Center grading of 4-widefield stereoscopic dilated fundus photographs using the ETDRS severity scale. The AI system provided automatic eye-level results regarding mtmDR.ResultsOverall, 521 participants (999 eyes) at 10 centers underwent dilated ophthalmoscopy: 406 by nonretina and 115 by retina specialists. Reading Center graded 207 positive and 792 eyes negative for mtmDR. Of these 999 eyes, 26 eyes were ungradable by the EyeArt system, leaving 973 eyes with both EyeArt and Reading Center gradings. Retina specialists correctly identified 22 of 37 eyes as positive (sensitivity 59.5%) and 182 of 184 eyes as negative (specificity 98.9%) for mtmDR versus the EyeArt AI system that identified 36 of 37 as positive (sensitivity 97%) and 162 of 184 eyes as negative (specificity of 88%) for mtmDR. General ophthalmologists correctly identified 35 of 170 eyes as positive (sensitivity 20.6%) and 607 of 608 eyes as negative (specificity 99.8%) for mtmDR compared with the EyeArt AI system that identified 164 of 170 as positive (sensitivity 96.5%) and 525 of 608 eyes as negative (specificity 86%) for mtmDR.ConclusionsThe AI system had a higher sensitivity for detecting mtmDR than either general ophthalmologists or retina specialists compared with the clinical reference standard. It can potentially serve as a low-cost point-of-care diabetic retinopathy detection tool and help address the diabetic eye screening burden.

Project description:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in numerous experimental studies, particularly in skin cancer diagnostics. Translation of these findings into the clinic is the logical next step. This translation can only be successful if patients' concerns and questions are addressed suitably. We therefore conducted a survey to evaluate the patients' view of artificial intelligence in melanoma diagnostics in Germany, with a particular focus on patients with a history of melanoma. Participants and Methods: A web-based questionnaire was designed using LimeSurvey, sent by e-mail to university hospitals and melanoma support groups and advertised on social media. The anonymous questionnaire evaluated patients' expectations and concerns toward artificial intelligence in general as well as their attitudes toward different application scenarios. Descriptive analysis was performed with expression of categorical variables as percentages and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical tests were performed to investigate associations between sociodemographic data and selected items of the questionnaire. Results: 298 individuals (154 with a melanoma diagnosis, 143 without) responded to the questionnaire. About 94% [95% CI = 0.91-0.97] of respondents supported the use of artificial intelligence in medical approaches. 88% [95% CI = 0.85-0.92] would even make their own health data anonymously available for the further development of AI-based applications in medicine. Only 41% [95% CI = 0.35-0.46] of respondents were amenable to the use of artificial intelligence as stand-alone system, 94% [95% CI = 0.92-0.97] to its use as assistance system for physicians. In sub-group analyses, only minor differences were detectable. Respondents with a previous history of melanoma were more amenable to the use of AI applications for early detection even at home. They would prefer an application scenario where physician and AI classify the lesions independently. With respect to AI-based applications in medicine, patients were concerned about insufficient data protection, impersonality and susceptibility to errors, but expected faster, more precise and unbiased diagnostics, less diagnostic errors and support for physicians. Conclusions: The vast majority of participants exhibited a positive attitude toward the use of artificial intelligence in melanoma diagnostics, especially as an assistance system.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have recently gained use in medical practice by health care practitioners. Interestingly, the output of these AI chatbots was found to have varying degrees of hallucination in content and references. Such hallucinations generate doubts about their output and their implementation.ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to propose a reference hallucination score (RHS) to evaluate the authenticity of AI chatbots' citations.MethodsSix AI chatbots were challenged with the same 10 medical prompts, requesting 10 references per prompt. The RHS is composed of 6 bibliographic items and the reference's relevance to prompts' keywords. RHS was calculated for each reference, prompt, and type of prompt (basic vs complex). The average RHS was calculated for each AI chatbot and compared across the different types of prompts and AI chatbots.ResultsBard failed to generate any references. ChatGPT 3.5 and Bing generated the highest RHS (score=11), while Elicit and SciSpace generated the lowest RHS (score=1), and Perplexity generated a middle RHS (score=7). The highest degree of hallucination was observed for reference relevancy to the prompt keywords (308/500, 61.6%), while the lowest was for reference titles (169/500, 33.8%). ChatGPT and Bing had comparable RHS (β coefficient=-0.069; P=.32), while Perplexity had significantly lower RHS than ChatGPT (β coefficient=-0.345; P<.001). AI chatbots generally had significantly higher RHS when prompted with scenarios or complex format prompts (β coefficient=0.486; P<.001).ConclusionsThe variation in RHS underscores the necessity for a robust reference evaluation tool to improve the authenticity of AI chatbots. Further, the variations highlight the importance of verifying their output and citations. Elicit and SciSpace had negligible hallucination, while ChatGPT and Bing had critical hallucination levels. The proposed AI chatbots' RHS could contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance AI's general reliability in medical research.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the perspectives of aspiring orthopaedic surgeons on artificial intelligence (AI), analysing how gender, AI knowledge, and technical inclination influence views on AI. Additionally, the extent to which recent AI advancements sway career decisions was assessed.Materials and methodsA digital survey was distributed to student members of orthopaedic societies across Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Subgroup analyses explored how gender, AI knowledge, and technical inclination shape attitudes towards AI.ResultsOf 174 total respondents, 86.2% (n = 150) intended to pursue a career in orthopaedic surgery and were included in the analysis. The majority (74.5%) reported 'basic' or 'no' knowledge about AI. Approximately 29.3% believed AI would significantly impact orthopaedics within 5 years, with another 35.3% projecting 5-10 years. AI was predominantly seen as an assistive tool (77.8%), without significant fear of job displacement. The most valued AI applications were identified as preoperative implant planning (85.3%), administrative tasks (84%), and image analysis (81.3%). Concerns arose regarding skill atrophy due to overreliance (69.3%), liability (68%), and diminished patient interaction (56%). The majority maintained a 'neutral' view on AI (53%), though 32.9% were 'enthusiastic'. A stronger focus on AI in medical education was requested by 81.9%. Most participants (72.8%) felt recent AI advancements did not alter their career decisions towards or away from the orthopaedic specialty. Statistical analysis revealed a significant association between AI literacy (p = 0.015) and technical inclination (p = 0.003). AI literacy did not increase significantly during medical education (p = 0.091).ConclusionsFuture orthopaedic surgeons exhibit a favourable outlook on AI, foreseeing its significant influence in the near future. AI literacy remains relatively low and showed no improvement during medical school. There is notable demand for improved AI-related education. The choice of orthopaedics as a specialty appears to be robust against the sway of recent AI advancements.Level of evidenceCross-sectional survey study; level IV.

Dataset Information

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Acceptance and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Usability in Eye Care (APPRAISE) for Ophthalmologists: A Multinational Perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets