Applying Artificial Intelligence to Address the Knowledge Gaps in Cancer Care.
Artificial Intelligence
Clinical Decision-Making
/ methods
Clinical Trials as Topic
Decision Support Systems, Clinical
Electronic Health Records
/ statistics & numerical data
Evidence-Based Medicine
/ methods
Feasibility Studies
Humans
Medical Oncology
/ methods
Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Patient Selection
Artificial intelligence application in medicine
Clinical decision support
Closing the cancer care gap
Democratization of evidence‐based care
Virtual expert advisor
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
30
04
2018
accepted:
28
09
2018
pubmed:
18
11
2018
medline:
21
7
2020
entrez:
18
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rapid advances in science challenge the timely adoption of evidence-based care in community settings. To bridge the gap between what is possible and what is practiced, we researched approaches to developing an artificial intelligence (AI) application that can provide real-time patient-specific decision support. The Oncology Expert Advisor (OEA) was designed to simulate peer-to-peer consultation with three core functions: patient history summarization, treatment options recommendation, and management advisory. Machine-learning algorithms were trained to construct a dynamic summary of patients cancer history and to suggest approved therapy or investigative trial options. All patient data used were retrospectively accrued. Ground truth was established for approximately 1,000 unique patients. The full Medline database of more than 23 million published abstracts was used as the literature corpus. OEA's accuracies of searching disparate sources within electronic medical records to extract complex clinical concepts from unstructured text documents varied, with F1 scores of 90%-96% for non-time-dependent concepts (e.g., diagnosis) and F1 scores of 63%-65% for time-dependent concepts (e.g., therapy history timeline). Based on constructed patient profiles, OEA suggests approved therapy options linked to supporting evidence (99.9% recall; 88% precision), and screens for eligible clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov (97.9% recall; 96.9% precision). Our results demonstrated technical feasibility of an AI-powered application to construct longitudinal patient profiles in context and to suggest evidence-based treatment and trial options. Our experience highlighted the necessity of collaboration across clinical and AI domains, and the requirement of clinical expertise throughout the process, from design to training to testing. Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered digital advisors such as the Oncology Expert Advisor have the potential to augment the capacity and update the knowledge base of practicing oncologists. By constructing dynamic patient profiles from disparate data sources and organizing and vetting vast literature for relevance to a specific patient, such AI applications could empower oncologists to consider all therapy options based on the latest scientific evidence for their patients, and help them spend less time on information "hunting and gathering" and more time with the patients. However, realization of this will require not only AI technology maturation but also active participation and leadership by clincial experts.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rapid advances in science challenge the timely adoption of evidence-based care in community settings. To bridge the gap between what is possible and what is practiced, we researched approaches to developing an artificial intelligence (AI) application that can provide real-time patient-specific decision support.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Oncology Expert Advisor (OEA) was designed to simulate peer-to-peer consultation with three core functions: patient history summarization, treatment options recommendation, and management advisory. Machine-learning algorithms were trained to construct a dynamic summary of patients cancer history and to suggest approved therapy or investigative trial options. All patient data used were retrospectively accrued. Ground truth was established for approximately 1,000 unique patients. The full Medline database of more than 23 million published abstracts was used as the literature corpus.
RESULTS
OEA's accuracies of searching disparate sources within electronic medical records to extract complex clinical concepts from unstructured text documents varied, with F1 scores of 90%-96% for non-time-dependent concepts (e.g., diagnosis) and F1 scores of 63%-65% for time-dependent concepts (e.g., therapy history timeline). Based on constructed patient profiles, OEA suggests approved therapy options linked to supporting evidence (99.9% recall; 88% precision), and screens for eligible clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov (97.9% recall; 96.9% precision).
CONCLUSION
Our results demonstrated technical feasibility of an AI-powered application to construct longitudinal patient profiles in context and to suggest evidence-based treatment and trial options. Our experience highlighted the necessity of collaboration across clinical and AI domains, and the requirement of clinical expertise throughout the process, from design to training to testing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered digital advisors such as the Oncology Expert Advisor have the potential to augment the capacity and update the knowledge base of practicing oncologists. By constructing dynamic patient profiles from disparate data sources and organizing and vetting vast literature for relevance to a specific patient, such AI applications could empower oncologists to consider all therapy options based on the latest scientific evidence for their patients, and help them spend less time on information "hunting and gathering" and more time with the patients. However, realization of this will require not only AI technology maturation but also active participation and leadership by clincial experts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30446581
pii: theoncologist.2018-0257
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0257
pmc: PMC6656515
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
772-782Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2018.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2014;:225-31
pubmed: 24857080
Nature. 2016 Jan 28;529(7587):484-9
pubmed: 26819042
Cancer Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;40:7-14
pubmed: 26605428
J Clin Invest. 2015 Sep;125(9):3384-91
pubmed: 26325035
Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(3):167-70
pubmed: 16547830
J Clin Bioinforma. 2015 Mar 26;5:4
pubmed: 25834725
J Oncol Pract. 2016 Apr;12(4):339-83
pubmed: 26979926
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 Jan 05;6:1
pubmed: 16396679
West J Nurs Res. 2018 May;40(5):753-766
pubmed: 28322657
JMIR Med Inform. 2016 May 19;4(2):e16
pubmed: 27199223
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May 30;69(21):2657-2664
pubmed: 28545640
Ann Oncol. 2005 Sep;16(9):1425-33
pubmed: 16012181
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Jan;15(1):56-62
pubmed: 28376461
Bioinformatics. 2015 Feb 15;31(4):462-70
pubmed: 25061067
J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Oct;92(4):429-37
pubmed: 15494758
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 1;32(13):1317-23
pubmed: 24663044