2019
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stealth research: Lack of peer‐reviewed evidence from healthcare unicorns

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unfortunately, many products in Table 2 are pursuing 'stealth science' to protect trade secrets and avoiding regulatory or academic scrutiny. 99 While stealth science is not uncommon amongst biomedical innovations, lack of transparency is particularly concerning with machine learning. This narrative review was unable to provide standard metrics of adoption, because many of the figures marketed by product developers have no peer-reviewed evidence.…”
Section: Challenges and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, many products in Table 2 are pursuing 'stealth science' to protect trade secrets and avoiding regulatory or academic scrutiny. 99 While stealth science is not uncommon amongst biomedical innovations, lack of transparency is particularly concerning with machine learning. This narrative review was unable to provide standard metrics of adoption, because many of the figures marketed by product developers have no peer-reviewed evidence.…”
Section: Challenges and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Placing these general considerations into perspective, Cristea and colleagues recently evaluated the lack of peer-reviewed evidence from healthcare unicorns 6 ; that is, biotech startups with promising technologies and market valuations that exceed the 1 billion threshold. Many startups had secured exceedingly high market valuations despite a lack of peer-reviewed publications to support their market-directed innovations.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scientific advisory boards are also important to guarantee field expertise. However, information on the membership and level of involvement of these boards is often lacking 6 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As highlighted by regulatory agencies such as the National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE) [30,31] and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [32,33], AI-driven CDSSs will usually require a high standard of clinical evidence before they can be safely used. However, there are now a large number of digital health startups operating in "stealth mode", with large investments and research and development programmes but without published evidence of mechanism of action or clinical effectiveness [34]. This conflict is likely to be resolved as new regulations are implemented, but vigilance will be required by clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers to ensure that open research approaches are adopted so that evaluations of AI systems are clinically relevant and reproducible, and can enable informed decisions about whether or not they should be adopted.…”
Section: Open Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%