Correction: Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review

Ying Wang,Nian Li,Lingmin Chen,Miaomiao Wu,Sha Meng,Zelei Dai,Yonggang Zhang,Mike Clarke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/55596

IF: 7.076

2023-12-22

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Related Article Correction of: https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e46089

health care sciences & services,medical informatics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review

Ying Wang,Nian Li,Lingmin Chen,Miaomiao Wu,Sha Meng,Zelei Dai,Yonggang Zhang,Mike Clarke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/46089

IF: 7.076

2023-11-22

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of health care is a promising area, and guidelines, consensus statements, and standards on AI regarding various topics have been developed. Objective We performed this study to assess the quality of guidelines, consensus statements, and standards in the field of AI for medicine and to provide a foundation for recommendations about the future development of AI guidelines. Methods We searched 7 electronic databases from database establishment to April 6, 2022, and screened articles involving AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards for eligibility. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) tools were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included articles. Results This systematic review included 19 guideline articles, 14 consensus statement articles, and 3 standard articles published between 2019 and 2022. Their content involved disease screening, diagnosis, and treatment; AI intervention trial reporting; AI imaging development and collaboration; AI data application; and AI ethics governance and applications. Our quality assessment revealed that the average overall AGREE II score was 4.0 (range 2.2-5.5; 7-point Likert scale) and the mean overall reporting rate of the RIGHT tool was 49.4% (range 25.7%-77.1%). Conclusions The results indicated important differences in the quality of different AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards. We made recommendations for improving their methodological and reporting quality. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022321360); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=321360

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Correction: Unassisted Clinicians Versus Deep Learning–Assisted Clinicians in Image-Based Cancer Diagnostics: Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Peng Xue,Mingyu Si,Dongxu Qin,Bingrui Wei,Samuel Seery,Zichen Ye,Mingyang Chen,Sumeng Wang,Cheng Song,Bo Zhang,Ming Ding,Wenling Zhang,Anying Bai,Huijiao Yan,Le Dang,Yuqian Zhao,Remila Rezhake,Shaokai Zhang,Youlin Qiao,Yimin Qu,Yu Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/49146

IF: 7.076

2023-06-03

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Related Article Correction of: http://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e43832/

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Guidelines and Standard Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Systematic Review

Kirubel Biruk Shiferaw,Moritz Roloff,Irina Balaur,Danielle Welter,Dagmar Waltemath,Atinkut Zeleke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.27.24307991

2024-05-28

Abstract:A growing volume of evidence marks the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medicine, in improving diagnostic accuracy, clinical decision support, risk/event prediction, drug discovery, and patient management. However, the continuous integration of AI into clinical settings requires the development of up-to-date and robust guidelines and standard frameworks that consider the evolving challenges of AI implementation in medicine. This review evaluates these guidelines quality and summarizes ethical frameworks, best practices, and recommendations. The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to assess the quality of guidelines based on six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. The protocol of this review including the eligibility criteria, the search strategy data extraction sheet and methods, was published prior to the actual review with International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) of (DERR1-10.2196/47105). The initial search resulted in 4,975 studies from two databases and five studies from manual search. Nine articles were selected for data extraction based on the eligibility criteria. We found that while guidelines generally excel in scope, purpose, and editorial independence, there is significant variability in applicability and the rigour of guideline development. Well-established initiatives such as DECIDE-AI, SPIRIT-AI, and CONSORT-AI have shown high quality, particularly in terms of stakeholder involvement. However, applicability remains a prominent challenge among the guidelines. We conclude that the reproducibility, ethical and environmental aspects of AI in medicine still need attention from both medical and AI communities. This review emphasizes the crucial need for high-quality guidelines and opens a new avenue in evaluating guidelines themselves. Our work highlights the need for working toward the development of integrated and comprehensive reporting guidelines that adhere to the principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability (FAIR). This alignment is essential for fostering a cultural shift towards transparency and open science, which are pivotal milestone for sustainable digital health research.
Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Fiona R Kolbinger,Gregory P Veldhuizen,Jiefu Zhu,Daniel Truhn,Jakob Nikolas Kather

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-024-00492-0

2024-04-11

Abstract:Background: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds transformative potential in medicine. However, the lack of universal reporting guidelines poses challenges in ensuring the validity and reproducibility of published research studies in this field. Methods: Based on a systematic review of academic publications and reporting standards demanded by both international consortia and regulatory stakeholders as well as leading journals in the fields of medicine and medical informatics, 26 reporting guidelines published between 2009 and 2023 were included in this analysis. Guidelines were stratified by breadth (general or specific to medical fields), underlying consensus quality, and target research phase (preclinical, translational, clinical) and subsequently analyzed regarding the overlap and variations in guideline items. Results: AI reporting guidelines for medical research vary with respect to the quality of the underlying consensus process, breadth, and target research phase. Some guideline items such as reporting of study design and model performance recur across guidelines, whereas other items are specific to particular fields and research stages. Conclusions: Our analysis highlights the importance of reporting guidelines in clinical AI research and underscores the need for common standards that address the identified variations and gaps in current guidelines. Overall, this comprehensive overview could help researchers and public stakeholders reinforce quality standards for increased reliability, reproducibility, clinical validity, and public trust in AI research in healthcare. This could facilitate the safe, effective, and ethical translation of AI methods into clinical applications that will ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Corrigendum: Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis

Kailin Jiang,Xiaotao Jiang,Jinglin Pan,Yi Wen,Yuanchen Huang,Senhui Weng,Shaoyang Lan,Kechao Nie,Zhihua Zheng,Shuling Ji,Peng Liu,Peiwu Li,Fengbin Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.698483

IF: 3.9

2021-05-14

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.629080.].

medicine, general & internal
Finding errors in the blink of AI: Use of an artificial intelligence tool to identify clinically important corrections to references cited by NCCN Guidelines for gynecologic malignancies.

Benjamin J Matthews,James Stuart Ferriss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13658

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13658 Background: Scientific articles are being retracted at higher rates for many reasons. Retractions or corrections may be unknown to authors citing these materials as primary sources, unwittingly perpetuating incorrect information. Our goal was to assess the utility of a scholarly artificial intelligence (AI) tool to identify errata to sources cited in NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for gynecologic cancers and to evaluate the clinical importance of identified errata. Methods: scite (scite Inc., Brooklyn, NY) is an AI tool that analyzes citations to generate a list of linked publications, display the context for each citation, and flag any published errata or retractions for each source. Using scite with references from NCCN Guidelines as of June 2023, we identified corrections to primary sources. Each author categorized errata as having major, minor, or no clinical relevance, with resolution of conflicts through discussion until consensus. To check whether scite missed errata, we assessed a random sample (20%) of unflagged references. Results: The guidelines cited 2,364 primary sources, and scite successfully linked to 1,984 (84%) of them . scite flagged 50 references (2.5%) as having corrections; all 50 did have errata (100% accuracy). scite identified 56 total errata, which were not always apparent on journal websites or PubMed. After review, 31 errors (55%) were classified as clinically relevant; 71% of those errors had major clinical importance and 29% were considered minor. Twenty errors (65%) had relevance to the guideline statements in which the source was cited, but only 1 (3%) error had potential to change current guideline text. Among the sample of sources scite did not flag, we identified none with published errata. Conclusions: We demonstrated use of an AI tool to accurately identify sources in clinical guidelines with published corrections. Sources with errata were uncommon, and our analysis did not reveal perpetuation of major errors in NCCN Guidelines. However, the proportion of corrections with major clinical relevance underscores the importance of awareness of errata when writing clinical guidelines or reviews. Compared to manual review of each source, AI tools can improve speed and accuracy in finding important errors. [Table: see text]

oncology
Erratum: Artificial intelligence based data curation: enabling a patient-centric European health data space

Frontiers Production Office

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1455319

2024-07-09

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1365501.].
Corrigendum to “TREAT: Therapeutic RNAs exploration inspired by artificial intelligence technology” [Comput Struct Biotechnol J 20 (2022) 5680–5689]

Yufan Luo,Liu Liu,Zihao He,Shanshan Zhang,Peipei Huo,Zhihao Wang,Qin Jiaxin,Lianhe Zhao,Yang Wu,Dongdong Zhang,Dechao Bu,Runsheng Chen,Yi Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2023.05.018

IF: 6.155

2023-01-01

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.scr.2023.103115.].

biochemistry & molecular biology
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Wu Shouyuan,Wang Jianjian,Guo Qiangqiang,Lan Hui,Zhang Juanjuan,Wang Ling,Janne Estill,Luo Xufei,Wang Qi,Song Yang,Mathew Joseph L.,Xun Yangqin,Yang Nan,Lee Myeong Soo,Chen Yaolong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imed.2021.12.001

2022-01-01

Intelligent Medicine

Abstract:Objective:This study aimed to summarize the characteristics and methodological quality of systematic reviews on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical diagnosis and treatment.Methods:We systematically searched seven English- and Chinese-language literature databases to identify systematic reviews on the application of AI, deep learning, or machine learning in the diagnosis and treatment of any disease published in 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using "A Measurement tool for the assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR). We also conducted meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of AI on selected disease categories with a large number of included studies and low clinical heterogeneity.Results:A total of 40 systematic reviews reporting 1,083 original studies were included, covering 31 diseases from 11 groups of diseases. Eleven systematic reviews were related to neoplasms and nine were systematic reviews related to diseases of the digestive system. We selected digestive system diseases for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivities (with 95% confidence interval (CI)) of AI to assist the diagnosis of helicobacter pylori, gastrointestinal ulcers, hemorrhage, esophageal tumors, gastric tumors, and intestinal tumors (with 95% CI) were 0.91 (0.83-0.95), 0.99 (0.76-1.00), 0.95 (0.83-0.99), 0.90 (0.85-0.93), 0.90 (0.82-0.95), and 0.93 (0.88-0.96), respectively, and the pooled specificities were 0.82 (0.77-0.87), 0.97 (0.86-1.00), 1.00 (0.99-1.00), 0.80 (0.71-0.87), 0.93 (0.87-0.97), and 0.89 (0.85-0.92), respectively. The AMSTAR items "the list of included studies" ( n = 39, 97.5%) and "the characteristics of the included studies" ( n = 39, 97.5%) had the highest compliance among the reviews; the compliance was relatively low to the items "the consideration of publication status" ( n = 1, 2.5%), "the consideration of scientific quality" ( n = 19, 47.5%), "data synthesis methods" ( n = 18, 45.0%), and " the evaluation of publication bias" ( n = 13, 32.5%). Conclusions:The main subjects of systematic reviews on AI applications in clinical diagnosis and treatment published in 2020 were diseases of the digestive system and neoplasms. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews on AI needs to be improved, paying particular attention to publication bias and the rigorous evaluation of the quality of the included studies.
Retracted: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Analysis for Intracranial Cerebral Hemorrhage Detection and Classification

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9804253

2022-12-14

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

Abstract:Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled "Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Analysis for Intracranial Cerebral Hemorrhage Detection and Classification" [1] due to concerns that the peer review process has been compromised.

health care sciences & services
Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?

Burak Koçak,Ali Keleş,Fadime Köse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.232604

2024-02-20

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Abstract:PURPOSE: To determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions.METHODS: The primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling.RESULTS: Out of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines (<i>P</i> < 0.05 for all).CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

Jingyu Zhong,Yue Xing,Junjie Lu,Guangcheng Zhang,Shiqi Mao,Haoda Chen,Qian Yin,Qingqing Cen,Run Jiang,Yangfan Hu,Defang Ding,Xiang Ge,Huan Zhang,Weiwu Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02117-x

2023-12-15

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:Complete reporting is essential for clinical research. However, the endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals is still unclear. Further, as a field extensively utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), the adoption of both general and AI reporting guidelines would be necessary for enhancing quality and transparency of radiological research. This study aims to investigate the endorsement of general reporting guidelines and those for AI applications in medical imaging in radiological journals, and explore associated journal characteristic variables.

health care sciences & services
Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Literature Review and Content Analysis of Frameworks

Norah L Crossnohere,Mohamed Elsaid,Jonathan Paskett,Seuli Bose-Brill,John F P Bridges

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/36823

IF: 7.076

2022-08-26

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding in medicine despite a lack of consensus on its application and evaluation. Objective: We sought to identify current frameworks guiding the application and evaluation of AI for predictive analytics in medicine and to describe the content of these frameworks. We also assessed what stages along the AI translational spectrum (ie, AI development, reporting, evaluation, implementation, and surveillance) the content of each framework has been discussed. Methods: We performed a literature review of frameworks regarding the oversight of AI in medicine. The search included key topics such as "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "guidance as topic," and "translational science," and spanned the time period 2014-2022. Documents were included if they provided generalizable guidance regarding the use or evaluation of AI in medicine. Included frameworks are summarized descriptively and were subjected to content analysis. A novel evaluation matrix was developed and applied to appraise the frameworks' coverage of content areas across translational stages. Results: Fourteen frameworks are featured in the review, including six frameworks that provide descriptive guidance and eight that provide reporting checklists for medical applications of AI. Content analysis revealed five considerations related to the oversight of AI in medicine across frameworks: transparency, reproducibility, ethics, effectiveness, and engagement. All frameworks include discussions regarding transparency, reproducibility, ethics, and effectiveness, while only half of the frameworks discuss engagement. The evaluation matrix revealed that frameworks were most likely to report AI considerations for the translational stage of development and were least likely to report considerations for the translational stage of surveillance. Conclusions: Existing frameworks for the application and evaluation of AI in medicine notably offer less input on the role of engagement in oversight and regarding the translational stage of surveillance. Identifying and optimizing strategies for engagement are essential to ensure that AI can meaningfully benefit patients and other end users.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
PRISMA AI reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on AI in healthcare

Giovanni E. Cacciamani,Timothy N. Chu,Daniel I. Sanford,Andre Abreu,Vinay Duddalwar,Assad Oberai,C.-C. Jay Kuo,Xiaoxuan Liu,Alastair K. Denniston,Baptiste Vasey,Peter McCulloch,Robert F. Wolff,Sue Mallett,John Mongan,Charles E. Kahn,Viknesh Sounderajah,Ara Darzi,Philipp Dahm,Karel G. M. Moons,Eric Topol,Gary S. Collins,David Moher,Inderbir S. Gill,Andrew J. Hung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02139-w

IF: 82.9

2023-01-17

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses play an essential part in guiding clinical practice at the point of care, as well as in the formulation of clinical practice guidelines and health policy 1,2 . There are three essential components to an impactful systematic review. First, the design of a study should be based upon a robust research question and search strategy. Second, minimization of bias should be enhanced by using quality-assessment tools and study-design-specific eligibility criteria. Third, reporting of results should be conducted transparently through adherence to expert-derived reporting items. Thousands of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, are produced annually, with an increasing proportion reporting on artificial intelligence (AI) interventions in health care. With this rapid expansion, there is a need for reporting guidelines tailored to AI 3,4,5,6,7 that will support high-quality, reproducible, and clinically relevant systematic reviews.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Automated medical literature screening using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yunying Feng,Siyu Liang,Yuelun Zhang,Shi Chen,Qing Wang,Tianze Huang,Feng Sun,Xiaoqing Liu,Huijuan Zhu,Hui Pan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac066

2022-05-31

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract:Abstract Objective We aim to investigate the application and accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) methods for automated medical literature screening for systematic reviews. Materials and Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library to identify potentially relevant studies. We included studies in automated literature screening that reported study question, source of dataset, and developed algorithm models for literature screening. The literature screening results by human investigators were considered to be the reference standard. Quantitative synthesis of the accuracy was conducted using a bivariate model. Results Eighty-six studies were included in our systematic review and 17 studies were further included for meta-analysis. The combined recall, specificity, and precision were 0.928 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.878–0.958], 0.647 (95% CI, 0.442–0.809), and 0.200 (95% CI, 0.135–0.287) when achieving maximized recall, but were 0.708 (95% CI, 0.570–0.816), 0.921 (95% CI, 0.824–0.967), and 0.461 (95% CI, 0.375–0.549) when achieving maximized precision in the AI models. No significant difference was found in recall among subgroup analyses including the algorithms, the number of screened literatures, and the fraction of included literatures. Discussion and Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that the recall is more important than the specificity or precision in literature screening, and a recall over 0.95 should be prioritized. We recommend to report the effectiveness indices of automatic algorithms separately. At the current stage manual literature screening is still indispensable for medical systematic reviews.

information science & library science,computer science, information systems, interdisciplinary applications,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Correction: Jin Et Al. Interobserver Agreement in Automatic Segmentation Annotation of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 1340

Liang Jin,Zhuangxuan Ma,Haiqing Li,Feng Gao,Pan Gao,Nan Yang,Dechun Li,Ming Li,Daoying Geng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11101027

2024-01-01

Abstract:The authors regret to pinpoint two editorial errors in [...]
Reporting guidelines for clinical trials of artificial intelligence interventions: the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines

Hussein Ibrahim,Xiaoxuan Liu,Samantha Cruz Rivera,David Moher,An-Wen Chan,Matthew R. Sydes,Melanie J. Calvert,Alastair K. Denniston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04951-6

IF: 2.728

2021-01-06

Trials

Abstract:Abstract Background The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is an area of immense interest. The high profile of ‘AI in health’ means that there are unusually strong drivers to accelerate the introduction and implementation of innovative AI interventions, which may not be supported by the available evidence, and for which the usual systems of appraisal may not yet be sufficient. Main text We are beginning to see the emergence of randomised clinical trials evaluating AI interventions in real-world settings. It is imperative that these studies are conducted and reported to the highest standards to enable effective evaluation because they will potentially be a key part of the evidence that is used when deciding whether an AI intervention is sufficiently safe and effective to be approved and commissioned. Minimum reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports have been instrumental in improving the quality of clinical trials and promoting completeness and transparency of reporting for the evaluation of new health interventions. The current guidelines—SPIRIT and CONSORT—are suited to traditional health interventions but research has revealed that they do not adequately address potential sources of bias specific to AI systems. Examples of elements that require specific reporting include algorithm version and the procedure for acquiring input data. In response, the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary group of international experts using a consensus building methodological process. The extensions include a number of new items that should be reported in addition to the core items. Each item, where possible, was informed by challenges identified in existing studies of AI systems in health settings. Conclusion The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines provide the first international standards for clinical trials of AI systems. The guidelines are designed to ensure complete and transparent reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports involving AI interventions and have the potential to improve the quality of these clinical trials through improvements in their design and delivery. Their use will help to efficiently identify the safest and most effective AI interventions and commission them with confidence for the benefit of patients and the public.

medicine, research & experimental
Author Correction: Advancing COVID-19 diagnosis with privacy-preserving collaboration in artificial intelligence

Xiang Bai,Hanchen Wang,Liya Ma,Yongchao Xu,Jiefeng Gan,Ziwei Fan,Fan Yang,Ke Ma,Jiehua Yang,Song Bai,Chang Shu,Xinyu Zou,Renhao Huang,Changzheng Zhang,Xiaowu Liu,Dandan Tu,Chuou Xu,Wenqing Zhang,Xi Wang,Anguo Chen,Yu Zeng,Dehua Yang,Ming-Wei Wang,Nagaraj Holalkere,Neil J. Halin,Ihab R. Kamel,Jia Wu,Xuehua Peng,Xiang Wang,Jianbo Shao,Pattanasak Mongkolwat,Jianjun Zhang,Weiyang Liu,Michael Roberts,Zhongzhao Teng,Lucian Beer,Lorena E. Sanchez,Evis Sala,Daniel L. Rubin,Adrian Weller,Joan Lasenby,Chuansheng Zheng,Jianming Wang,Zhen Li,Carola Schönlieb,Tian Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00485-5

IF: 23.8

2022-04-01

Nature Machine Intelligence

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s42256-021-00421-z.].

computer science, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary applications
Correction to: AI (Re)Defining Pharmaceutical Exclusivities, by Jonathan Kimball and Srividhya Ragavan, Biotechnol Law Rep 2022;41(1):23–29; doi: 10.1089/blr.2021.29257.sr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2021.29257.sr.correx

2022-04-01

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:In the February 2022 issue of Biotechnology Law Report (vol. 41, no. 1; 23–29), the article titled AI (Re)Defining Pharmaceutical Exclusivities, by Jonathan Kimball and Srividhya Ragavan requires correction.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Correction: Digital Mental Health Interventions for Alleviating Depression and Anxiety During Psychotherapy Waiting Lists: Systematic Review

Sijia Huang,Yiyue Wang,Gen Li,Brian J Hall,Thomas J Nyman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/67281

2024-10-17

JMIR Mental Health

Abstract:Related Article Correction of: https://mental.jmir.org/2024/1/e56650

psychiatry

Correction: Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review

Guidelines, Consensus Statements, and Standards for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Systematic Review

Correction: Unassisted Clinicians Versus Deep Learning–Assisted Clinicians in Image-Based Cancer Diagnostics: Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Guidelines and Standard Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: A Systematic Review

Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Corrigendum: Current Evidence and Future Perspective of Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Application for Early Gastric Cancer Diagnosis With Endoscopy: A Systematic and Meta-Analysis

Finding errors in the blink of AI: Use of an artificial intelligence tool to identify clinically important corrections to references cited by NCCN Guidelines for gynecologic malignancies.

Erratum: Artificial intelligence based data curation: enabling a patient-centric European health data space

Corrigendum to “TREAT: Therapeutic RNAs exploration inspired by artificial intelligence technology” [Comput Struct Biotechnol J 20 (2022) 5680–5689]

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Retracted: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Analysis for Intracranial Cerebral Hemorrhage Detection and Classification

Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Literature Review and Content Analysis of Frameworks

PRISMA AI reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on AI in healthcare

Automated medical literature screening using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Correction: Jin Et Al. Interobserver Agreement in Automatic Segmentation Annotation of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 1340

Reporting guidelines for clinical trials of artificial intelligence interventions: the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines

Author Correction: Advancing COVID-19 diagnosis with privacy-preserving collaboration in artificial intelligence

Correction to: AI (Re)Defining Pharmaceutical Exclusivities, by Jonathan Kimball and Srividhya Ragavan, Biotechnol Law Rep 2022;41(1):23–29; doi: 10.1089/blr.2021.29257.sr

Correction: Digital Mental Health Interventions for Alleviating Depression and Anxiety During Psychotherapy Waiting Lists: Systematic Review