Inherent bias in the artificial intelligence (AI)-model brings inaccuracies and variabilities during clinical deployment of the model. It is challenging to recognize the source of bias in AI-model due to variations in datasets and black box nature of system design. Additionally, there is no distinct process to identify the potential source of bias in the AI-model. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of its kind that addresses the bias in AI-model by categorizing 48 studies into three classes, namely, point-based, image-based, and hybrid-based AI-models. Selection strategy using PRISMA is adopted to select the 72 crucial AI studies for identifying bias in AI models. Using the three classes, bias is identified in these studies based on 44 critical AI attributes. Bias in the AI-models is computed by analytical, butterfly, and ranking-based bias models. These bias models were evaluated using two experts and compared using variability analysis. AI-studies that lacked sufficient AI-attributes are more prone to risk-of-bias (RoB) in all three classes. Studies with high RoB loses fins in the butterfly model. It has been analyzed that the majority of the studies in healthcare suffer from data bias and algorithmic bias due to incomplete specifications mentioned in the design protocol and weak AI design exploited for prediction.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected over ∼165 million people worldwide causing Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and has killed ∼3.4 million people. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown to benefit in the biomedical image such as X-ray/Computed Tomography in diagnosis of ARDS, but there are limited AI-based systematic reviews (aiSR). The purpose of this study is to understand the Risk-of-Bias (RoB) in a non-randomized AI trial for handling ARDS using novel AtheroPoint-AI-Bias (AP(ai)Bias). Our hypothesis for acceptance of a study to be in low RoB must have a mean score of 80% in a study. Using the PRISMA model, 42 best AI studies were analyzed to understand the RoB. Using the AP(ai)Bias paradigm, the top 19 studies were then chosen using the raw-cutoff of 1.9. This was obtained using the intersection of the cumulative plot of "mean score vs. study" and score distribution. Finally, these studies were benchmarked against ROBINS-I and PROBAST paradigm. Our observation showed that AP(ai)Bias, ROBINS-I, and PROBAST had only 32%, 16%, and 26% studies, respectively in low-moderate RoB (cutoff>2.5), however none of them met the RoB hypothesis. Further, the aiSR analysis recommends six primary and six secondary recommendations for the non-randomized AI for ARDS. The primary recommendations for improvement in AI-based ARDS design inclusive of (i) comorbidity, (ii) inter-and intra-observer variability studies, (iii) large data size, (iv) clinical validation, (v) granularity of COVID-19 risk, and (vi) cross-modality scientific validation. The AI is an important component for diagnosis of ARDS and the recommendations must be followed to lower the RoB.

Early and accurate diagnosis of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is essential for patient isolation and contact tracing so that the spread of infection can be limited. Computed tomography (CT) can provide important information in COVID-19, especially for patients with moderate to severe disease as well as those with worsening cardiopulmonary status. As an automatic tool, deep learning methods can be utilized to perform semantic segmentation of affected lung regions, which is important to establish disease severity and prognosis prediction. Both the extent and type of pulmonary opacities help assess disease severity. However, manually pixel-level multi-class labelling is time-consuming, subjective, and non-quantitative. In this article, we proposed a hybrid weak label-based deep learning method that utilize both the manually annotated pulmonary opacities from COVID-19 pneumonia and the patient-level disease-type information available from the clinical report. A UNet was firstly trained with semantic labels to segment the total infected region. It was used to initialize another UNet, which was trained to segment the consolidations with patient-level information using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. To demonstrate the performance of the proposed method, multi-institutional CT datasets from Iran, Italy, South Korea, and the United States were utilized. Results show that our proposed method can predict the infected regions as well as the consolidation regions with good correlation to human annotation.

The aim of this paper is to describe a novel and completely automated technique for carotid artery (CA) recognition, far (distal) wall segmentation, and intima-media thickness (IMT) measurement, which is a strong clinical tool for risk assessment for cardiovascular diseases. The architecture of completely automated multiresolution edge snapper (CAMES) consists of the following two stages: 1) automated CA recognition based on a combination of scale-space and statistical classification in a multiresolution framework and 2) automated segmentation of lumen-intima (LI) and media-adventitia (MA) interfaces for the far (distal) wall and IMT measurement. Our database of 365 B-mode longitudinal carotid images is taken from four different institutions covering different ethnic backgrounds. The ground-truth (GT) database was the average manual segmentation from three clinical experts. The mean distance ± standard deviation of CAMES with respect to GT profiles for LI and MA interfaces were 0.081 ± 0.099 and 0.082 ± 0.197 mm, respectively. The IMT measurement error between CAMES and GT was 0.078 ± 0.112 mm. CAMES was benchmarked against a previously developed automated technique based on an integrated approach using feature-based extraction and classifier (CALEX). Although CAMES underestimated the IMT value, it had shown a strong improvement in segmentation errors against CALEX for LI and MA interfaces by 8% and 42%, respectively. The overall IMT measurement bias for CAMES improved by 36% against CALEX. Finally, this paper demonstrated that the figure-of-merit of CAMES was 95.8% compared with 87.4% for CALEX. The combination of multiresolution CA recognition and far-wall segmentation led to an automated, low-complexity, real-time, and accurate technique for carotid IMT measurement. Validation on a multiethnic/multi-institutional data set demonstrated the robustness of the technique, which can constitute a clinically valid IMT measurement for assistance in atherosclerosis disease management.