Last reviewed · How we verify

NCT05495438: ICU

Impact and Safety of AI in Decision Making in the ICU: a Simulation Experiment

Completed Last updated 27 February 2023
What this trial tests

trial testing Hypothetical AI in Sepsis in 38 participants. Completed in 31 October 2022.

Timeline
22 July 2022
Primary endpoint
31 October 2022
31 October 2022

Quick facts

Lead sponsorImperial College London
StatusCompleted
Study typeOBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment38
Start date22 July 2022
Primary completion31 October 2022
Estimated completion31 October 2022
Sites1 location across United Kingdom

Drugs / interventions tested

Conditions studied

Sponsor

Imperial College London

Who can join

18 and older, any sex, with Sepsis. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Sponsor's own description

The impact of deploying artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare settings in unclear, in particular with regards to how it will influence human decision makers. Previous research demonstrated that AI alerts were frequently ignored (Kamal et al., 2020 ) or could lead to unexpected behaviour with worsening of patient outcomes (Wilson et al., 2021 ). On the other hand, excessive confidence and trust placed in the AI could have several adverse consequences including ability to detect harmful AI decisions, leading to patient harm as well as human deskilling. Some of these aspects relate to automation bias. In this simulation study, the investigators intend to measure whether medical decisions in areas of high clinical uncertainty are modified by the use of an AI-based clinical decision support tool. How the dose of intravenous fluids (IVF) and vasopressors administered by doctors in adult patients with sepsis (severe infection with organ failure) in the ICU), changes as a result of disclosing the doses suggested by a hypothetical AI will be measured. The area of sepsis resuscitation is poorly codified, with high uncertainty leading to high variability in practice. This study will not specifically mention the AI Clinician (Komorowski et al., 2018). Instead, the investigators will describe a hypothetical AI for which there is some evidence of effectiveness on retrospective data in another clinical setting (e.g. a model that was retrospectively validated using data from a different country than the source data used for model training) but no prospective evidence of effectiveness or safety. As such, it is possible for this hypothetical AI to provide unsafe suggestions. The investigators will intentionally introduce unsafe AI suggestions (in random order), to measure the sensitivity of our participants at detecting these.

Publications & conference data

No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial. Completed trials usually publish results within 12-18 months.

Verify or expand the search:

Other recruiting trials for Sepsis

Currently open trials in the same condition.

Other Imperial College London trials

Trials by the same sponsor.

Verify against primary sources

Data sources for this page

Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT05495438.

Primary sources · FDA · ClinicalTrials.gov · EMA · SEC EDGAR · ChEMBL · Wikidata · full sourcing