Artificial intelligence for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia: a scoping review of the evidence from multiple disciplines.

artificial intelligence evaluation medical devices regional anaesthesia regulation standardisation ultrasound

Journal

British journal of anaesthesia
ISSN: 1471-6771
Titre abrégé: Br J Anaesth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372541

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 28 11 2023
revised: 09 01 2024
accepted: 24 01 2024
medline: 7 3 2024
pubmed: 7 3 2024
entrez: 6 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Artificial intelligence (AI) for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field. There is a risk that work could be undertaken in parallel by different elements of the community but with a lack of knowledge transfer between disciplines, leading to repetition and diverging methodologies. This scoping review aimed to identify and map the available literature on the accuracy and utility of AI systems for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia. A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Clinical trial registries, a registry of doctoral theses, regulatory authority databases, and websites of learned societies in the field were searched. Online commercial sources were also reviewed. In total, 13,014 sources were identified; 116 were included for full-text review. A marked change in AI techniques was noted in 2016-17, from which point on the predominant technique used was deep learning. Methods of evaluating accuracy are variable, meaning it is impossible to compare the performance of one model with another. Evaluations of utility are more comparable, but predominantly gained from the simulation setting with limited clinical data on efficacy or safety. Study methodology and reporting lack standardisation. There is a lack of structure to the evaluation of accuracy and utility of AI for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia, which hinders rigorous appraisal and clinical uptake. A framework for consistent evaluation is needed to inform model evaluation, allow comparison between approaches/models, and facilitate appropriate clinical adoption.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence (AI) for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field. There is a risk that work could be undertaken in parallel by different elements of the community but with a lack of knowledge transfer between disciplines, leading to repetition and diverging methodologies. This scoping review aimed to identify and map the available literature on the accuracy and utility of AI systems for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia.
METHODS METHODS
A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Clinical trial registries, a registry of doctoral theses, regulatory authority databases, and websites of learned societies in the field were searched. Online commercial sources were also reviewed.
RESULTS RESULTS
In total, 13,014 sources were identified; 116 were included for full-text review. A marked change in AI techniques was noted in 2016-17, from which point on the predominant technique used was deep learning. Methods of evaluating accuracy are variable, meaning it is impossible to compare the performance of one model with another. Evaluations of utility are more comparable, but predominantly gained from the simulation setting with limited clinical data on efficacy or safety. Study methodology and reporting lack standardisation.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of structure to the evaluation of accuracy and utility of AI for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia, which hinders rigorous appraisal and clinical uptake. A framework for consistent evaluation is needed to inform model evaluation, allow comparison between approaches/models, and facilitate appropriate clinical adoption.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38448269
pii: S0007-0912(24)00059-X
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.01.036
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

James S Bowness (JS)

Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Anaesthesia, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, UK. Electronic address: james.bowness@jesus.ox.ac.uk.

David Metcalfe (D)

Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Emergency Medicine Research in Oxford (EMROx), Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/@TraumaDataDoc.

Kariem El-Boghdadly (K)

Department of Anaesthesia and Peri-operative Medicine, Guy's & St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Centre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/@elboghdadly.

Neal Thurley (N)

Bodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Megan Morecroft (M)

Faculty of Medicine, Health & Life Sciences, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.

Thomas Hartley (T)

Intelligent Ultrasound, Cardiff, UK. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/@tomhartley84.

Joanna Krawczyk (J)

Department of Anaesthesia, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, UK.

J Alison Noble (JA)

Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/@AlisonNoble_OU.

Helen Higham (H)

Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Nuffield Department of Anaesthesia, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/@HelenEHigham.

Classifications MeSH