Cited by 126Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

Clinical impact and quality of randomized controlled trials involving interventions evaluating artificial intelligence prediction tools: a systematic review

Open access
Zhou, Qian, Chen, Zhi-hang, Cao, Yi-heng, Peng, Sui·2021·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

The evidence of the impact of traditional statistical (TS) and artificial intelligence (AI) tool interventions in clinical practice was limited. This study aimed to investigate the clinical impact and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions evaluating TS, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) prediction tools. A systematic review on PubMed was conducted to identify RCTs involving TS/ML/DL tool interventions in the past decade. A total of 65 RCTs from 26,082 records were included. A majority of them had model development studies and generally good performance was achieved. The function of TS and ML tools in the RCTs mainly included assistive treatment decisions, assistive diagnosis, and risk stratification, but DL trials were only conducted for assistive diagnosis. Nearly two-fifths of the trial interventions showed no clinical benefit compared to standard care. Though DL and ML interventions achieved higher rates of positive results than TS in the RCTs, in trials with low risk of bias (17/65) the advantage of DL to TS was reduced while the advantage of ML to TS disappeared. The current applications of DL were not yet fully spread performed in medicine. It is predictable that DL will integrate more complex clinical problems than ML and TS tools in the future. Therefore, rigorous studies are required before the clinical application of these tools.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-021-00524-2

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A survey of 95 randomized controlled trials of AI software found mixed results of their clinical impact.

    “a survey of 95 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AI software found mixed results of their clinical impact4.”

    From The algorithm journey map: a tangible approach to implementing AI solutions in healthcare (2024) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results (General characteristics; page not available) report 65 RCTs, not 95, and include traditional statistical prediction tools as well as AI tools. The Results (AI tool intervention and its performance; page not available) support the characterization of mixed clinical impact: 61.5% of trials had positive primary outcomes, while 38.5% showed no statistically significant benefit. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Implementation of ML and AI models may not yield net positive outcomes for patients despite their methodological efficacy.

    “Despite the demonstrated methodological efficacy of ML and AI models, it is imperative to acknowledge that their implementation may not necessarily yield net positive outcomes for patients.”
  • A systematic review of 65 randomized controlled trials found that approximately 40% of AI-based prediction tools that had previously shown satisfactory performance in observational studies failed to demonstrate statistically significant clinical benefits for patients compared to standard clinical care.

    “A systematic review of 65 randomized controlled trials evaluating AI-based prediction tools revealed that approximately 40% of the tools, which had previously exhibited satisfactory performance in observational model development or validation studies, failed to demonstrate statistically significant clinical benefits for patients when compared to standard clinical care protocols [68].”
  • Even the most accurate AI model will fail if oncologists cannot use it effectively.

    “Even the most accurate AI model will fail if oncologists cannot use it effectively [139,140,141].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, Q., Chen, Z.-H., Cao, Y.-H., & Peng, S.
Affiliations
  • The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
  • Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhou, Qian
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2021-10-28
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
154-154
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3211034094
Cited by
126
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 29
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Guangdong Medical Research Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
machine learning, deep learning, clinical impact, trial quality, risk of bias, risk stratification, treatment decision support, clinical implementation of AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review