Artificial Intelligence-powered Virtual Assistant for Emergency Triage in Neurology

Early Phase 1

Completed

• Conditions: Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Vertigo Benign Positional; Stroke; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage; Facial Palsy; Migraine; Status Epilepticus; Delirium; Trigeminal Neuralgia; Meningitis
• Interventions: Diagnostic Test: Virtual Assistant

• Registration Number: NCT06334796
• Lead Sponsor: Fundación para la Lucha contra las Enfermedades Neurológicas de la Infancia

Brief Summary

This study examines the use of an AI-powered virtual assistant for quickly identifying and handling neurological emergencies, particularly in places with limited medical resources. The research aimed to check if this AI tool is safe and accurate enough to move on to more advanced testing stages. In a first-of-its-kind trial, the virtual assistant was tested with patients having urgent neurological issues. Neurologists first reviewed the AI's recommendations using clinical records and then assessed its performance directly with patients. The findings were as follows: neurologists agreed with the AI's decisions nearly all the time, and the AI outperformed earlier versions of Chat GPT in every tested aspect. Patients and doctors found the AI to be highly effective, rating it as excellent or very good in most cases. This suggests the AI could significantly enhance how quickly and accurately neurological emergencies are dealt with, although further trials are needed before it can be widely used.

Detailed Description

Background and Objectives: Neurological emergencies pose significant challenges in medical care, especially in resource-limited countries. Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly health chatbots, offers a promising solution. However, rigorous validation is required to ensure safety and accuracy. The objective of our work is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and resolution effectiveness of an AI-powered virtual assistant designed for the triage of emergency neurological pathologies, to ensure the minimum standard of safety that allows for the progression to successive validation tests.

Methods: This Phase 1 trial evaluates the performance of an AI-powered virtual assistant for emergency neurological triage. Ten patients over 18 years old with urgent neurological pathologies were selected. In the first stage, nine neurologists assessed the safety of the virtual assistant using their clinical records. In the second part, the assistant's accuracy when used by patients was evaluated. Finally, its performance was compared with Chat GPT 3.5 and 4.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2023-10-01
• Primary Completion: 2024-01-01
• Study Completion: 2024-01-01
• Status Verified: 2024-03
• Study First Submitted: 2024-03-06
• Study First Submitted QC: 2024-03-21
• Last Update Submitted: 2024-03-21
• Study First Posted: 2024-03-28
• Last Update Posted: 2024-03-28

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 10

Inclusion Criteria

• Patients over 18 years old consulting in the ER due to a neurological emergency

Exclusion Criteria

• Pregnancy

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: SINGLE_GROUP

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
ChatGPT 3.5	Virtual Assistant	Patients answer question with ChatGPT about their recent visit to the ER.
Virtual Assistant	Virtual Assistant	Patients answer question with a virtual assistant about their recent visit to the ER.
ChatGPT 4	Virtual Assistant	Patients answer question with ChatGPT about their recent visit to the ER.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Diagnostic performance	The first interaction between participants and the virtual assistant occurred within less than a year after the event. Outcome measures were evaluated immediately after the interaction between patients and the virtual assistant.	Refers to the accuracy and effectiveness of medical tests or diagnostic tools in correctly identifying a disease or condition in patients.; Syndromic diagnosis agreement: evaluating neurologists considered a syndromic diagnosis accurate when AI tools could identify a condition based on a set of commonly coexisting signs and symptoms, rather than identifying a specific disease. This method is applied when the precise disease causing the symptoms is not immediately identifiable, allowing healthcare providers to effectively monitor and treat the patient's presenting symptoms.; Differential diagnosis agreement: a differential diagnosis was considered accurate when the differentials provided by each AI tool matched those presented by the participants.; The gold standard for diagnosis was considered to be the one given in the emergency department, unchanged over a one-month period.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Appropriate medical conduct or recommendation	The first interaction between participants and the virtual assistant occurred within less than a year after the event. Outcome measures were evaluated immediately after the interaction between patients and the virtual assistant.	Case resolution was evaluated based on appropriate medical conduct or recommendation, categorizing 1) urgency as immediate, 2) short-term (within 48 hours), 3) or non-urgent.; The recommendations provided by each AI tool were assessed based on information gathered from clinical histories and input from participants.; The gold standard of appropriate medical conduct or recommendation was considered to be that given in the emergency department, with no changes over a period of one month.
Assessment of Usability and Satisfaction	The first interaction between participants and the virtual assistant occurred within less than a year after the event. Outcome measures were evaluated immediately after the interaction between patients and the virtual assistant.	Usability was measured by the time and number of questions needed for final diagnosis and resolution, both by neurologists and participants. For Chat GPT, we evaluated the time taken to draft the consultation reason.; A satisfaction scale from 1 to 5 was implemented, with 1 indicating a negative experience ("poor", potentially risky for the patient) and 5 highly positive ("excellent", potentially surpassing non-specialized human triage). A simple yes/no survey was also applied to participants, asking about the comprehensibility of the assistant's questions, the adequacy of referral according to urgency, and whether they considered the assistant could replace non-specialized triage or reduce emergency arrival time.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Fleni; 🇦🇷 Buenos Aires, Argentina