Cargando…

Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues

In 1955, when John McCarthy and his colleagues proposed their first study of artificial intelligence, they suggested that ‘every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it’. Whether that might ever be p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Asselbergs, Folkert W, Fraser, Alan G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36713089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztab090
_version_ 1784840832318177280
author Asselbergs, Folkert W
Fraser, Alan G
author_facet Asselbergs, Folkert W
Fraser, Alan G
author_sort Asselbergs, Folkert W
collection PubMed
description In 1955, when John McCarthy and his colleagues proposed their first study of artificial intelligence, they suggested that ‘every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it’. Whether that might ever be possible would depend on how we define intelligence, but what is indisputable is that new methods are needed to analyse and interpret the copious information provided by digital medical images, genomic databases, and biobanks. Technological advances have enabled applications of artificial intelligence (AI) including machine learning (ML) to be implemented into clinical practice, and their related scientific literature is exploding. Advocates argue enthusiastically that AI will transform many aspects of clinical cardiovascular medicine, while sceptics stress the importance of caution and the need for more evidence. This report summarizes the main opposing arguments that were presented in a debate at the 2021 Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Artificial intelligence is an advanced analytical technique that should be considered when conventional statistical methods are insufficient, but testing a hypothesis or solving a clinical problem—not finding another application for AI—remains the most important objective. Artificial intelligence and ML methods should be transparent and interpretable, if they are to be approved by regulators and trusted to provide support for clinical decisions. Physicians need to understand AI methods and collaborate with engineers. Few applications have yet been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes, so investment in research is essential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9708032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97080322023-01-27 Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues Asselbergs, Folkert W Fraser, Alan G Eur Heart J Digit Health Point of View In 1955, when John McCarthy and his colleagues proposed their first study of artificial intelligence, they suggested that ‘every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it’. Whether that might ever be possible would depend on how we define intelligence, but what is indisputable is that new methods are needed to analyse and interpret the copious information provided by digital medical images, genomic databases, and biobanks. Technological advances have enabled applications of artificial intelligence (AI) including machine learning (ML) to be implemented into clinical practice, and their related scientific literature is exploding. Advocates argue enthusiastically that AI will transform many aspects of clinical cardiovascular medicine, while sceptics stress the importance of caution and the need for more evidence. This report summarizes the main opposing arguments that were presented in a debate at the 2021 Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Artificial intelligence is an advanced analytical technique that should be considered when conventional statistical methods are insufficient, but testing a hypothesis or solving a clinical problem—not finding another application for AI—remains the most important objective. Artificial intelligence and ML methods should be transparent and interpretable, if they are to be approved by regulators and trusted to provide support for clinical decisions. Physicians need to understand AI methods and collaborate with engineers. Few applications have yet been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes, so investment in research is essential. Oxford University Press 2021-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9708032/ /pubmed/36713089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztab090 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Point of View
Asselbergs, Folkert W
Fraser, Alan G
Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
title Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
title_full Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
title_fullStr Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
title_full_unstemmed Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
title_short Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
title_sort artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues
topic Point of View
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9708032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36713089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztab090
work_keys_str_mv AT asselbergsfolkertw artificialintelligenceincardiologythedebatecontinues
AT fraseralang artificialintelligenceincardiologythedebatecontinues