Need for Transparency and Clinical Interpretability in Hemorrhagic Stroke Artificial Intelligence Research: Promoting Effective Clinical Application.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the quality of artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) studies on hemorrhagic stroke using the Minimum Information for Medical AI Reporting (MINIMAR) and Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling (MI-CLAIM) frameworks to promote clinical application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for AI/ML studies on hemorrhagic stroke. Out of the 531 articles found, 29 relevant original research articles were included. MINIMAR and MI-CLAIM scores were assigned by two experienced radiologists to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

We analyzed 29 investigations that utilized AI/ML in the field of hemorrhagic stroke, involving a median of 224.5 patients. The majority of studies focused on diagnostic outcomes using computed tomography scans (89.7%) and were published in computer science journals (48.3%). The overall adherence rates to reporting guidelines, as assessed through the MINIMAR and MI-CLAIM frameworks, were 47.6% and 46.0%, respectively. In MINIMAR, none of the studies reported the socioeconomic status of the patients or how missing values had been addressed. In MI-CLAIM, only two studies applied model-examination techniques to improve model interpretability. Transparency and reproducibility were limited, as only 10.3% of the studies had publicly shared their code. Cohen's kappa between the two radiologists was 0.811 and 0.779 for MINIMAR and MI-CLAIM, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The overall reporting quality of published AI/ML studies on hemorrhagic stroke is suboptimal. It is necessary to incorporate model examination techniques for interpretability and promote code openness to enhance transparency and increase the clinical applicability of AI/ML studies.