Cited by 24Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

We need more randomized clinical trials of AI.

Ouyang, David, Hogan, Joseph·2024·NEJM AI

Abstract

AbstractIn the first prospective clinical trial of artificial intelligence (AI) assistance in stress echocardiography, there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between AI assistance and standard-of-care assessment. There is significant value in conducting prospective clinical trials of AI, and there are lessons on implementation to be learned from this study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/aie2400881

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ouyang, D., & Hogan, J.
Affiliations
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Venue
NEJM AI
Published
2024-10-24
Volume
1
Issue
11
Pages
AIe2400881-AIe2400881
ISSN
2836-9386 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403518164
Cited by
24
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NEJM AI (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
artificial intelligence, randomized controlled trials, AI evaluation, evidence generation, clinical research methodology

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