ObjectiveGiven the complexities of testing the translational capability of new artificial intelligence (AI) tools, we aimed to map the pathways of training/validation/testing in development process and external validation of AI tools evaluated in dedicated randomised controlled trials (AI-RCTs).MethodsWe searched for peer-reviewed protocols and completed AI-RCTs evaluating the clinical effectiveness of AI tools and identified development and validation studies of AI tools. We collected detailed information, and evaluated patterns of development and external validation of AI tools.ResultsWe found 23 AI-RCTs evaluating the clinical impact of 18 unique AI tools (2009–2021). Standard-of-care interventions were used in the control arms in all but one AI-RCT. Investigators did not provide access to the software code of the AI tool in any of the studies. Considering the primary outcome, the results were in favour of the AI intervention in 82% of the completed AI-RCTs (14 out of 17). We identified significant variation in the patterns of development, external validation and clinical evaluation approaches among different AI tools. A published development study was found only for 10 of the 18 AI tools. Median time from the publication of a development study to the respective AI-RCT was 1.4 years (IQR 0.2–2.2).ConclusionsWe found significant variation in the patterns of development and validation for AI tools before their evaluation in dedicated AI-RCTs. Published peer-reviewed protocols and completed AI-RCTs were also heterogeneous in design and reporting. Upcoming guidelines providing guidance for the development and clinical translation process aim to improve these aspects.

No abstract

Aims The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of antidepressant therapy on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and results We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and performed a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that investigated antidepressant pharmacotherapy in patients following ACS. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were repeat hospitalizations and recurrent myocardial infarctions (MIs). Ten randomized controlled trials with a total of 1935 patients qualified for inclusion. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were investigated in six, bupropion in three, and mirtazapine in one trial. Placebo was used as control in eight trials. There was no difference in all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.66-1.42] and recurrent MI (OR 0.64, 95% CrI 0.40-1.02) between patients receiving antidepressants compared with controls, whereas antidepressant therapy was associated with less repeat hospitalizations (OR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.40-0.94). In patients with ACS and concomitant depression, antidepressants reduced the odds of recurrent MI compared with usual care/placebo (OR 0.45, 95% CrI 0.25-0.81). Extended funnel plots suggest robustness of the observations. Conclusions Antidepressants in patients following ACS have no effect on mortality but reduce repeat hospitalizations; in patients with depression, there is a reduced risk of recurrent MI with antidepressant therapy.