Cargando…

Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study

BACKGROUND: Consumer-oriented mobile self-diagnosis apps have been developed using undisclosed algorithms, presumably based on machine learning and other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US Food and Drug Administration now discerns apps with learning AI algorithms from those with stabl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Ćirković, Aleksandar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7748958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33275113
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/18097
_version_ 1783625231382872064
author Ćirković, Aleksandar
author_facet Ćirković, Aleksandar
author_sort Ćirković, Aleksandar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Consumer-oriented mobile self-diagnosis apps have been developed using undisclosed algorithms, presumably based on machine learning and other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US Food and Drug Administration now discerns apps with learning AI algorithms from those with stable ones and treats the former as medical devices. To the author’s knowledge, no self-diagnosis app testing has been performed in the field of ophthalmology so far. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test apps that were previously mentioned in the scientific literature on a set of diagnoses in a deliberate time interval, comparing the results and looking for differences that hint at “nonlocked” learning algorithms. METHODS: Four apps from the literature were chosen (Ada, Babylon, Buoy, and Your.MD). A set of three ophthalmology diagnoses (glaucoma, retinal tear, dry eye syndrome) representing three levels of urgency was used to simultaneously test the apps’ diagnostic efficiency and treatment recommendations in this specialty. Two years was the chosen time interval between the tests (2018 and 2020). Scores were awarded by one evaluating physician using a defined scheme. RESULTS: Two apps (Ada and Your.MD) received significantly higher scores than the other two. All apps either worsened in their results between 2018 and 2020 or remained unchanged at a low level. The variation in the results over time indicates “nonlocked” learning algorithms using AI technologies. None of the apps provided correct diagnoses and treatment recommendations for all three diagnoses in 2020. Two apps (Babylon and Your.MD) asked significantly fewer questions than the other two (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: “Nonlocked” algorithms are used by self-diagnosis apps. The diagnostic efficiency of the tested apps seems to worsen over time, with some apps being more capable than others. Systematic studies on a wider scale are necessary for health care providers and patients to correctly assess the safety and efficacy of such apps and for correct classification by health care regulating authorities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7748958
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77489582020-12-30 Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study Ćirković, Aleksandar J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Consumer-oriented mobile self-diagnosis apps have been developed using undisclosed algorithms, presumably based on machine learning and other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US Food and Drug Administration now discerns apps with learning AI algorithms from those with stable ones and treats the former as medical devices. To the author’s knowledge, no self-diagnosis app testing has been performed in the field of ophthalmology so far. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test apps that were previously mentioned in the scientific literature on a set of diagnoses in a deliberate time interval, comparing the results and looking for differences that hint at “nonlocked” learning algorithms. METHODS: Four apps from the literature were chosen (Ada, Babylon, Buoy, and Your.MD). A set of three ophthalmology diagnoses (glaucoma, retinal tear, dry eye syndrome) representing three levels of urgency was used to simultaneously test the apps’ diagnostic efficiency and treatment recommendations in this specialty. Two years was the chosen time interval between the tests (2018 and 2020). Scores were awarded by one evaluating physician using a defined scheme. RESULTS: Two apps (Ada and Your.MD) received significantly higher scores than the other two. All apps either worsened in their results between 2018 and 2020 or remained unchanged at a low level. The variation in the results over time indicates “nonlocked” learning algorithms using AI technologies. None of the apps provided correct diagnoses and treatment recommendations for all three diagnoses in 2020. Two apps (Babylon and Your.MD) asked significantly fewer questions than the other two (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: “Nonlocked” algorithms are used by self-diagnosis apps. The diagnostic efficiency of the tested apps seems to worsen over time, with some apps being more capable than others. Systematic studies on a wider scale are necessary for health care providers and patients to correctly assess the safety and efficacy of such apps and for correct classification by health care regulating authorities. JMIR Publications 2020-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7748958/ /pubmed/33275113 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/18097 Text en ©Aleksandar Ćirković. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 04.12.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Ćirković, Aleksandar
Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study
title Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study
title_full Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study
title_short Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study
title_sort evaluation of four artificial intelligence–assisted self-diagnosis apps on three diagnoses: two-year follow-up study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7748958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33275113
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/18097
work_keys_str_mv AT cirkovicaleksandar evaluationoffourartificialintelligenceassistedselfdiagnosisappsonthreediagnosestwoyearfollowupstudy