Literature DB >> 23287490

Artificial intelligence framework for simulating clinical decision-making: a Markov decision process approach.

Casey C Bennett1, Kris Hauser.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In the modern healthcare system, rapidly expanding costs/complexity, the growing myriad of treatment options, and exploding information streams that often do not effectively reach the front lines hinder the ability to choose optimal treatment decisions over time. The goal in this paper is to develop a general purpose (non-disease-specific) computational/artificial intelligence (AI) framework to address these challenges. This framework serves two potential functions: (1) a simulation environment for exploring various healthcare policies, payment methodologies, etc., and (2) the basis for clinical artificial intelligence - an AI that can "think like a doctor".
METHODS: This approach combines Markov decision processes and dynamic decision networks to learn from clinical data and develop complex plans via simulation of alternative sequential decision paths while capturing the sometimes conflicting, sometimes synergistic interactions of various components in the healthcare system. It can operate in partially observable environments (in the case of missing observations or data) by maintaining belief states about patient health status and functions as an online agent that plans and re-plans as actions are performed and new observations are obtained. This framework was evaluated using real patient data from an electronic health record.
RESULTS: The results demonstrate the feasibility of this approach; such an AI framework easily outperforms the current treatment-as-usual (TAU) case-rate/fee-for-service models of healthcare. The cost per unit of outcome change (CPUC) was $189 vs. $497 for AI vs. TAU (where lower is considered optimal) - while at the same time the AI approach could obtain a 30-35% increase in patient outcomes. Tweaking certain AI model parameters could further enhance this advantage, obtaining approximately 50% more improvement (outcome change) for roughly half the costs.
CONCLUSION: Given careful design and problem formulation, an AI simulation framework can approximate optimal decisions even in complex and uncertain environments. Future work is described that outlines potential lines of research and integration of machine learning algorithms for personalized medicine.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23287490     DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2012.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Artif Intell Med        ISSN: 0933-3657            Impact factor:   5.326


  24 in total

Review 1.  Current Applications and Future Impact of Machine Learning in Radiology.

Authors:  Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  The Use of a Nomogram to Visually Interpret a Logistic Regression Prediction Model for Giant Cell Arteritis.

Authors:  Edsel B Ing; Royce Ing
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2018-02-05

Review 3.  Personalization and Patient Involvement in Decision Support Systems: Current Trends.

Authors:  S Quaglini; L Sacchi; G Lanzola; N Viani
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2015-08-13

4.  Dynamic Treatment Regimes.

Authors:  Bibhas Chakraborty; Susan A Murphy
Journal:  Annu Rev Stat Appl       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 5.  Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Neurocritical Care: a Specialty-Wide Disruptive Transformation or a Strategy for Success.

Authors:  Fawaz Al-Mufti; Michael Kim; Vincent Dodson; Tolga Sursal; Christian Bowers; Chad Cole; Corey Scurlock; Christian Becker; Chirag Gandhi; Stephan A Mayer
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 5.081

6.  Optimizing the dynamic treatment regime of in-hospital warfarin anticoagulation in patients after surgical valve replacement using reinforcement learning.

Authors:  Juntong Zeng; Jianzhun Shao; Shen Lin; Hongchang Zhang; Xiaoting Su; Xiaocong Lian; Yan Zhao; Xiangyang Ji; Zhe Zheng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 7.942

7.  Heterogeneous adaptive behavioral responses may increase epidemic burden.

Authors:  Baltazar Espinoza; Samarth Swarup; Christopher L Barrett; Madhav Marathe
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Dr. Answer AI for prostate cancer: Intention to use, expected effects, performance, and concerns of urologists.

Authors:  Mi Jung Rho; Jihwan Park; Hyong Woo Moon; Choung-Soo Kim; Seong Soo Jeon; Minyong Kang; Ji Youl Lee
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2021-11-23

Review 9.  Imaging, Health Record, and Artificial Intelligence: Hype or Hope?

Authors:  Marco Mazzanti; Ervina Shirka; Hortensia Gjergo; Endri Hasimi
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 10.  The Promise of AI in Detection, Diagnosis, and Epidemiology for Combating COVID-19: Beyond the Hype.

Authors:  Musa Abdulkareem; Steffen E Petersen
Journal:  Front Artif Intell       Date:  2021-05-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.