Cited by 39Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Barriers of artificial intelligence implementation in the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea

Open access
Brennan, Hannah L., Kirby, Simon D.·2022·Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

Abstract

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea is a common clinical condition and has a significant impact on the health of patients if untreated. The current diagnostic gold standard for obstructive sleep apnea is polysomnography, which is labor intensive, requires specialists to utilize, expensive, and has accessibility challenges. There are also challenges with awareness and identification of obstructive sleep apnea in the primary care setting. Artificial intelligence systems offer the opportunity for a new diagnostic approach that addresses the limitations of polysomnography and ultimately benefits patients by streamlining the diagnostic expedition. Main body: The purpose of this project is to elucidate the barriers that exist in the implementation of artificial intelligence systems into the diagnostic context of obstructive sleep apnea. It is essential to understand these challenges in order to proactively create solutions and establish an efficient adoption of this new technology. The literature regarding the evolution of the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea, the role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis, and the barriers in artificial intelligence implementation was reviewed and analyzed. Conclusion: The barriers identified were categorized into different themes including technology, data, regulation, human resources, education, and culture. Many of these challenges are ubiquitous across artificial intelligence implementation in any medical diagnostic setting. Future research directions include developing solutions to the barriers presented in this project. Graphical abstract:

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 · 10.1186/s40463-022-00566-w

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • Inaccurate and underrepresentative training data sets for AI models can cause bias, misleading predictions, adverse events, and large-scale discrimination, causing barriers to adoption.

    “Inaccurate and underrepresentative training data sets for AI models can cause bias, misleading predictions, adverse events, and large-scale discrimination, causing barriers to adoption [32,41,47,48].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Main body section on barriers says unreliable training data obstructs implementation and that dataset bias can make AI predictions less accurate. It also describes unrepresentative datasets and risks of bias affecting marginalized groups. Our copy does not establish adverse events or large-scale discrimination as consequences of those datasets. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Physicians expressed that they would be less likely to use an AI given their familiarity with the patient's condition and the value of intuition in clinical decision-making.

    “From a clinician standpoint, physicians expressed that they would be less likely to use an AI, given their familiarity with the patient’s condition and the value of intuition in clinical decision-making [32,35].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    In “Barriers involved in AI implementation” (Environment/culture; page unavailable), the paper says physician intuition is often valued above technological approaches. The same section describes physicians as hesitant to adopt AI. It does not report physicians expressing that they would be less likely to use AI because they were familiar with a patient’s condition. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The presence of AI experts, perhaps a multidisciplinary team with clinical scientists, data science and subject matter experts with AI skills, an innovation manager, AI experts to provide training, and local champions within departments involved in the end-to-end process, was considered an important element for adoption.

    “The presence of AI experts, perhaps a multidisciplinary team, particularly with clinical scientists, data science and subject matter experts with AI skills, an innovation manager, AI experts to provide training, and local champions within departments involved in the end-to-end process, was considered an important element for adoption [32,57,59,62,71].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Human resources section says AI implementation requires knowledgeable personnel to build, maintain and improve systems, as well as people to establish training programs. The Education section also identifies a need for knowledgeable teachers. Neither section specifies a multidisciplinary team, an innovation manager, or departmental champions involved throughout the end-to-end process. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Shortages of personnel with the required skills and the quality of IT infrastructure available for AI implementation were reported as barriers.

    “Shortages of personnel with the required skills were reported as barriers, along with the quality of IT infrastructure available for AI implementation [32,35,36,40,45,50].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The ‘Human resources’ and ‘Education’ subsections under ‘Barriers involved in AI implementation’ identify the need for knowledgeable personnel and training, supporting the skilled-personnel portion. Our copy does not identify the quality of available IT infrastructure as a barrier; searches for infrastructure and related technical resources found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Privacy and ethics concerns were focused on maintaining confidentiality, ensuring processes are in place to obtain consent, and having informed consent with clarity on how data will be processed.

    “Concerns about privacy and ethics were focused on maintaining confidentiality, ensuring processes are in place to obtain consent, and having informed consent with clarity on how the data will be processed [32,39,47,56].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The “Privacy and confidentiality” subsection identifies confidentiality and ethical data management as concerns. The following passage says patient consent is important and may need to be a dynamic process, but it does not say that informed consent must clearly explain how data will be processed. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Brennan, H. L., & Kirby, S. D.
Affiliations
Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
Corresponding author
Brennan, Hannah L.
Venue
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
Published
2022-01
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
  • 1916-0208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1916-0216
OpenAlex
W4224849966
Cited by
39
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Undergrad Research Award
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
obstructive sleep apnea, artificial intelligence, AI implementation barriers, sleep apnea diagnosis, polysomnography, primary care, health data, regulation, human resources, medical education, technology adoption
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Polysomnography, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive

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