Ground Truth Or Dare: Factors Affecting The Creation Of Medical Datasets For Training AI

One of the core goals of responsible AI development is ensuring high-quality training datasets. Many researchers have pointed to the importance of the annotation step in the creation of high-quality data, but less attention has been paid to the work that enables data annotation. We define this work as the design of ground truth schema and explore the challenges involved in the creation of datasets in the medical domain even before any annotations are made. Based on extensive work in three health-tech organisations, we describe five external and internal factors that condition medical dataset creation processes. Three external factors include regulatory constraints, the context of creation and use, and commercial and operational pressures. These factors condition medical data collection and shape the ground truth schema design. Two internal factors include epistemic differences and limits of labelling. These directly shape the design of the ground truth schema. Discussions of what constitutes high-quality data need to pay attention to the factors that shape and constrain what is possible to be created, to ensure responsible AI design

Inherited determinants of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis phenotypes: a genetic association study

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are the two major forms of inflammatory bowel disease; treatment strategies have historically been determined by this binary categorisation. Genetic studies have identified 163 susceptibility loci for inflammatory bowel disease, mostly shared between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. We undertook the largest genotype association study, to date, in widely used clinical subphenotypes of inflammatory bowel disease with the goal of further understanding the biological relations between diseases

Rationale and design of the SafeHeart study: Development and testing of a mHealth tool for the prediction of arrhythmic events and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

BACKGROUND: Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are at a high risk of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The use of remote ICD monitoring, wearable devices, and patient-reported outcomes generate large volumes of potential valuable data. Artificial intelligence–based methods can be used to develop personalized prediction models and improve early-warning systems. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an integrated web-based personalized prediction engine for ICD therapy. METHODS: This international, multicenter, prospective, observational study consists of 2 phases: (1) a development study and (2) a feasibility study. We plan to enroll 400 participants with an ICD (with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy) on remote monitoring: 300 participants in the development study and 100 in the feasibility study. During 12-month follow-up, electronic health record data, remote monitoring data, accelerometry-assessed physical behavior data, and patient-reported data are collected. By using machine- and deep-learning approaches, a prediction engine is developed to assess the risk probability of ICD therapy (shock and antitachycardia pacing). The feasibility of the prediction engine as a clinical tool, the SafeHeart Platform, is assessed during the feasibility study. RESULTS: Development study recruitment commenced in 2021. The feasibility study starts in 2022. CONCLUSION: SafeHeart is the first study to prospectively collect a multimodal data set to construct a personalized prediction engine for ICD therapy. Moreover, SafeHeart explores the integration and added value of detailed objective accelerometer data in the prediction of clinical events. The translation of the SafeHeart Platform to clinical practice is examined during the feasibility study

Accelerometer-assessed physical behavior and the association with clinical outcomes in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: A systematic review

Background: Current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) devices are equipped with a device-embedded accelerometer capable of capturing physical activity (PA). In contrast, wearable accelerometer-based methods enable the measurement of physical behavior (PB) that encompasses not only PA but also sleep behavior, sedentary time, and rest-activity patterns. Objective: This systematic review evaluates accelerometer-based methods used in patients carrying an ICD or at high risk of sudden cardiac death. Methods: Papers were identified via the OVID MEDLINE and OVID EMBASE databases. PB could be assessed using a wearable accelerometer or an embedded accelerometer in the ICD. Results: A total of 52 papers were deemed appropriate for this review. Out of these studies, 30 examined device-embedded accelerometry (189,811 patients), 19 examined wearable accelerometry (1601 patients), and 3 validated wearable accelerometry against device-embedded accelerometry (106 patients). The main findings were that a low level of PA after implantation of the ICD and a decline in PA were both associated with an increased risk of mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and appropriate ICD shock. Second, PA was affected by cardiac factors (eg, onset of atrial fibrillation, ICD shocks) and noncardiac factors (eg, seasonal differences, societal factors). Conclusion: This review demonstrated the potential of accelerometer-measured PA as a marker of clinical deterioration and ventricular arrhythmias. Notwithstanding that the evidence of PB assessed using wearable accelerometry was limited, there seems to be potential for accelerometers to improve early warning systems and facilitate preventative and proactive strategies

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field