Concussions in Sledding Sports and the Unrecognized “Sled Head”: A Systematic Review

Background: Sport-related concussion is a significant public health concern. Little research has been conducted on sport-related concussion and injury prevention strategies in competitive sledding sports like bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. Athletes have identified “sled head” as a key concern due to its symptom burden.Purpose: To summarize our knowledge of the prevalence of concussion and related symptoms in sledding sports; to utilize Haddon's Matrix to inform and define strategies for injury prevention.Methods: An independent information specialist conducted a search for the known literature on injuries in non-recreational sledding sports, and specifically for concussion via OVID Medline, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database, EMBASE, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Sciences from 1946 to December 2017. After iterative searches of reference sections, a total of 844 articles were assessed for inclusion.Results: Nine articles were included for review. Concussions are a common occurrence in elite sledding sport athletes, affecting 13-18% of all sledding athletes. Significant variance exists between events, indicating a potential effect of the ice track in injury risk. The condition known as “sled head” is discussed and identified as a key point of further investigation. A number of potential injury prevention strategies are discussed.Interpretation: Head injuries and concussions are an important injury for elite sledding sports and a number of avenues exist for prevention. More work is required to delineate the mechanisms, characteristics, natural history and management of “sled head.

Issues and Challenges in Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Nuclear Medicine -- The Bethesda Report (AI Summit 2022)

The SNMMI Artificial Intelligence (SNMMI-AI) Summit, organized by the SNMMI AI Task Force, took place in Bethesda, MD on March 21-22, 2022. It brought together various community members and stakeholders from academia, healthcare, industry, patient representatives, and government (NIH, FDA), and considered various key themes to envision and facilitate a bright future for routine, trustworthy use of AI in nuclear medicine. In what follows, essential issues, challenges, controversies and findings emphasized in the meeting are summarized

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77–94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines

Publisher Correction: Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI (Nature Medicine, (2022), 28, 5, (924-933), 10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9)

In the version of this article initially published, a list of the DECIDE-AI expert group members and their affiliations was omitted and has now been included in the HTML and PDF versions of the article. *A list of authors and their affiliations appears online

Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI

A growing number of artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are showing promising performance in preclinical, in silico evaluation, but few have yet demonstrated real benefit to patient care. Early-stage clinical evaluation is important to assess an AI system's actual clinical performance at small scale, ensure its safety, evaluate the human factors surrounding its use and pave the way to further large-scale trials. However, the reporting of these early studies remains inadequate. The present statement provides a multi-stakeholder, consensus-based reporting guideline for the Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigations of DEcision support systems driven by Artificial Intelligence (DECIDE-AI). We conducted a two-round, modified Delphi process to collect and analyze expert opinion on the reporting of early clinical evaluation of AI systems. Experts were recruited from 20 pre-defined stakeholder categories. The final composition and wording of the guideline was determined at a virtual consensus meeting. The checklist and the Explanation & Elaboration (E&E) sections were refined based on feedback from a qualitative evaluation process. In total, 123 experts participated in the first round of Delphi, 138 in the second round, 16 in the consensus meeting and 16 in the qualitative evaluation. The DECIDE-AI reporting guideline comprises 17 AI-specific reporting items (made of 28 subitems) and ten generic reporting items, with an E&E paragraph provided for each. Through consultation and consensus with a range of stakeholders, we developed a guideline comprising key items that should be reported in early-stage clinical studies of AI-based decision support systems in healthcare. By providing an actionable checklist of minimal reporting items, the DECIDE-AI guideline will facilitate the appraisal of these studies and replicability of their findings

The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications.

Acknowledgements: This project is funded by the NHS AI Lab at the NHS Transformation Directorate and The Health Foundation and managed by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (AI_HI200014). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS Transformation Directorate, The Health Foundation or the National Institute for Health and Care Research. D.T. and F.M. are funded by the National Pathology Imaging Co-operative, NPIC (project no. 104687), supported by a £50 million investment from the Data to Early Diagnosis and Precision Medicine strand of the government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, managed and delivered by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).Funder: This project is funded by The NHS AI Lab at the NHS Transformation Directorate and the Health Foundation and managed by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (AI_HI200014). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS Transformation Directorate, the Health Foundation or the National Institute for Health and Care Research.Funder: DT and FMcK are funded by National Pathology Imaging Co-operative, NPIC (Project no. 104687), supported by a £50m investment from the Data to Early Diagnosis and Precision Medicine strand of the government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, managed and delivered by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative)