Cargando…
Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32665978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0303-x |
_version_ | 1783556623131738112 |
---|---|
author | Tagliaferri, Scott D. Angelova, Maia Zhao, Xiaohui Owen, Patrick J. Miller, Clint T. Wilkin, Tim Belavy, Daniel L. |
author_facet | Tagliaferri, Scott D. Angelova, Maia Zhao, Xiaohui Owen, Patrick J. Miller, Clint T. Wilkin, Tim Belavy, Daniel L. |
author_sort | Tagliaferri, Scott D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test−retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7347608 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73476082020-07-13 Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews Tagliaferri, Scott D. Angelova, Maia Zhao, Xiaohui Owen, Patrick J. Miller, Clint T. Wilkin, Tim Belavy, Daniel L. NPJ Digit Med Review Article Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test−retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7347608/ /pubmed/32665978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0303-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Tagliaferri, Scott D. Angelova, Maia Zhao, Xiaohui Owen, Patrick J. Miller, Clint T. Wilkin, Tim Belavy, Daniel L. Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
title | Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
title_full | Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
title_fullStr | Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
title_short | Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
title_sort | artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32665978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0303-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tagliaferriscottd artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews AT angelovamaia artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews AT zhaoxiaohui artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews AT owenpatrickj artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews AT millerclintt artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews AT wilkintim artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews AT belavydaniell artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews |