Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews

Abstract Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b)...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Scott D. Tagliaferri, Maia Angelova, Xiaohui Zhao, Patrick J. Owen, Clint T. Miller, Tim Wilkin, Daniel L. Belavy
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Publishing Group 2020-07-01
Series:npj Digital Medicine
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0303-x
id doaj-9092303b7bbc4ef1b1ffb87ef1d96762
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9092303b7bbc4ef1b1ffb87ef1d967622021-07-11T11:08:31ZengNature Publishing Groupnpj Digital Medicine2398-63522020-07-013111610.1038/s41746-020-0303-xArtificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviewsScott D. Tagliaferri0Maia Angelova1Xiaohui Zhao2Patrick J. Owen3Clint T. Miller4Tim Wilkin5Daniel L. Belavy6Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin UniversitySchool of Information Technology, Deakin UniversityXi’an University of Architecture & TechnologyInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin UniversityInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin UniversitySchool of Information Technology, Deakin UniversityInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin UniversityAbstract Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test−retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0303-x
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Scott D. Tagliaferri
Maia Angelova
Xiaohui Zhao
Patrick J. Owen
Clint T. Miller
Tim Wilkin
Daniel L. Belavy
spellingShingle Scott D. Tagliaferri
Maia Angelova
Xiaohui Zhao
Patrick J. Owen
Clint T. Miller
Tim Wilkin
Daniel L. Belavy
Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
npj Digital Medicine
author_facet Scott D. Tagliaferri
Maia Angelova
Xiaohui Zhao
Patrick J. Owen
Clint T. Miller
Tim Wilkin
Daniel L. Belavy
author_sort Scott D. Tagliaferri
title Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
title_short Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
title_full Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
title_fullStr Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
title_full_unstemmed Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
title_sort artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews
publisher Nature Publishing Group
series npj Digital Medicine
issn 2398-6352
publishDate 2020-07-01
description Abstract Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test−retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0303-x
work_keys_str_mv AT scottdtagliaferri artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
AT maiaangelova artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
AT xiaohuizhao artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
AT patrickjowen artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
AT clinttmiller artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
AT timwilkin artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
AT daniellbelavy artificialintelligencetoimprovebackpainoutcomesandlessonslearntfromclinicalclassificationapproachesthreesystematicreviews
_version_ 1721309352734752768