% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Lennerz:212479,
author = {J. K. Lennerz and R. Salgado and G. E. Kim and S. J.
Sirintrapun and J. C. Thierauf$^*$ and A. Singh and I.
Indave and A. Bard and S. E. Weissinger and Y. K. Heher and
M. E. de Baca and I. A. Cree and S. Bennett and A. Carobene
and T. Ozben and L. L. Ritterhouse},
title = {{D}iagnostic quality model ({DQM}): an integrated framework
for the assessment of diagnostic quality when using
{AI}/{ML}.},
journal = {Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine},
volume = {61},
number = {4},
issn = {1434-6621},
address = {Berlin [u.a.]},
publisher = {De Gruyter},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-00187},
pages = {544-557},
year = {2023},
note = {Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery,
German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), / 2023 Jan
25;61(4):544-557},
abstract = {Laboratory medicine has reached the era where promises of
artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) seem
palpable. Currently, the primary responsibility for
risk-benefit assessment in clinical practice resides with
the medical director. Unfortunately, there is no tool or
concept that enables diagnostic quality assessment for the
various potential AI/ML applications. Specifically, we noted
that an operational definition of laboratory diagnostic
quality - for the specific purpose of assessing AI/ML
improvements - is currently missing.A session at the 3rd
Strategic Conference of the European Federation of
Laboratory Medicine in 2022 on 'AI in the Laboratory of the
Future' prompted an expert roundtable discussion. Here we
present a conceptual diagnostic quality framework for the
specific purpose of assessing AI/ML implementations.The
presented framework is termed diagnostic quality model (DQM)
and distinguishes AI/ML improvements at the test, procedure,
laboratory, or healthcare ecosystem level. The operational
definition illustrates the nested relationship among these
levels. The model can help to define relevant objectives for
implementation and how levels come together to form coherent
diagnostics. The affected levels are referred to as scope
and we provide a rubric to quantify AI/ML improvements while
complying with existing, mandated regulatory standards. We
present 4 relevant clinical scenarios including multi-modal
diagnostics and compare the model to existing quality
management systems.A diagnostic quality model is essential
to navigate the complexities of clinical AI/ML
implementations. The presented diagnostic quality framework
can help to specify and communicate the key implications of
AI/ML solutions in laboratory diagnostics.},
keywords = {artificial intelligence (Other) / biomarker (Other) /
laboratory medicine (Other) / machine learning (Other) /
regulatory science (Other)},
cin = {E221},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E221-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:36696602},
doi = {10.1515/cclm-2022-1151},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/212479},
}