Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness
- PMID: 32198138
- PMCID: PMC11515850
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6927
Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness
Erratum in
-
Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness.BMJ. 2020 Apr 1;369:m1312. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1312. BMJ. 2020. PMID: 32238345 No abstract available.
-
Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness.BMJ. 2024 Oct 28;387:q2390. doi: 10.1136/bmj.q2390. BMJ. 2024. PMID: 39467607 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalise previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Despite much promising research currently being undertaken, particularly in imaging, the literature as a whole lacks transparency, clear reporting to facilitate replicability, exploration for potential ethical concerns, and clear demonstrations of effectiveness. Among the many reasons why these problems exist, one of the most important (for which we provide a preliminary solution here) is the current lack of best practice guidance specific to machine learning and artificial intelligence. However, we believe that interdisciplinary groups pursuing research and impact projects involving machine learning and artificial intelligence for health would benefit from explicitly addressing a series of questions concerning transparency, reproducibility, ethics, and effectiveness (TREE). The 20 critical questions proposed here provide a framework for research groups to inform the design, conduct, and reporting; for editors and peer reviewers to evaluate contributions to the literature; and for patients, clinicians and policy makers to critically appraise where new findings may deliver patient benefit.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: GSC and KGMM are part of the TRIPOD steering group. GSC is director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. The remaining authors have no additional declarations.
References
-
- Tsigelny IF. Artificial intelligence in drug combination therapy. Brief Bioinform 2019;20:1434-48. - PubMed
-
- Carney S. Report of the NW London CCGs’ collaboration board. November 2017. https://www.centrallondonccg.nhs.uk/media/70538/150-updated-with-clarifi...
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- WT_/Wellcome Trust/United Kingdom
- 27294/CRUK_/Cancer Research UK/United Kingdom
- RP-PG-0407-10314/DH_/Department of Health/United Kingdom
- MR/M501633/2/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
- MR/K006584/1/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
- 16895/CRUK_/Cancer Research UK/United Kingdom
- MC_UP_A390_1107/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
- CSO_/Chief Scientist Office/United Kingdom
- 05/40/04/DH_/Department of Health/United Kingdom
- MC_PC_13041/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
- G0902393/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources