Cited by 64Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

Must-have Qualities of Clinical Research on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Open access
Koçak, Burak, Cuocolo, Renato, Santos, Daniel Pinto dos, Stanzione, Arnaldo, Ugga, Lorenzo·2023·Balkan Medical Journal

Abstract

In the field of computer science, known as artificial intelligence, algorithms imitate reasoning tasks that are typically performed by humans. The techniques that allow machines to learn and get better at tasks such as recognition and prediction, which form the basis of clinical practice, are referred to as machine learning, which is a subfield of artificial intelligence. The number of artificial intelligence-and machine learnings-related publications in clinical journals has grown exponentially, driven by recent developments in computation and the accessibility of simple tools. However, clinicians are often not included in data science teams, which may limit the clinical relevance, explanability, workflow compatibility, and quality improvement of artificial intelligence solutions. Thus, this results in the language barrier between clinicians and artificial intelligence developers. Healthcare practitioners sometimes lack a basic understanding of artificial intelligence research because the approach is difficult for non-specialists to understand. Furthermore, many editors and reviewers of medical publications might not be familiar with the fundamental ideas behind these technologies, which may prevent journals from publishing high-quality artificial intelligence studies or, worse still, could allow for the publication of low-quality works. In this review, we aim to improve readers’ artificial intelligence literacy and critical thinking. As a result, we concentrated on what we consider the 10 most important qualities of artificial intelligence research: valid scientific purpose, high-quality data set, robust reference standard, robust input, no information leakage, optimal bias-variance tradeoff, proper model evaluation, proven clinical utility, transparent reporting, and open science. Before designing a study, one should have defined a sound scientific purpose. Then, it should be backed by a high-quality data set, robust input, and a solid reference standard. The artificial intelligence development pipeline should prevent information leakage. For the models, optimal bias-variance tradeoff should be achieved, and generalizability assessment must be adequately performed. The clinical value of the final models must also be established. After the study, thought should be given to transparency in publishing the process and results as well as open science for sharing data, code, and models. We hope this work may improve the artificial intelligence literacy and mindset of the readers.

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 · 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2022.2022-11-51

Cites

106 of 106 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep Learning. MIT Press; 2016. at [Internet] http://www.deeplearningbook.org
  2. [18]Pineau J Vincent-Lamarre P Sinha K et al Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research(A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program) J Mach Learn Res. 2021 22 1 20

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koçak, B., Cuocolo, R., Santos, D. P. D., Stanzione, A., & Ugga, L.
Affiliations
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR)
  • University of Salerno (IT)
  • University Hospital Frankfurt (DE)
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Corresponding author
Koçak, Burak
Venue
Balkan Medical Journal
Published
2023-01-24
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
3-12
ISSN
  • 1301-3149 (ISSN-L)
  • 2146-3123
  • 2146-3131
OpenAlex
W4313280127
Cited by
64
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Balkan Medical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
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
artificial intelligence in healthcare, machine learning, clinical research quality, AI literacy, clinical relevance, information leakage, bias-variance trade-off, model evaluation, clinical utility, reporting transparency, open science, data quality, generalizability, clinician-AI collaboration
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Humans

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