Citations

Interest in the potential applications of artificial intelligence in medicine, anesthesiology, and the world at large has never been higher. The Anesthesia Research Council steering committee formed an anesthesiologist artificial intelligence expert workgroup charged with evaluating the current state of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, providing examples of future artificial intelligence applications and identifying barriers to artificial intelligence progress. The workgroup’s findings are summarized here, starting with a brief introduction to artificial intelligence for clinicians, followed by overviews of current and anticipated artificial intelligence–focused research and applications in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology’s progress in artificial intelligence is compared to that of other medical specialties, and barriers to artificial intelligence development and implementation in our specialty are discussed. The workgroup’s recommendations address stakeholders in policymaking, research, development, implementation, training, and use of artificial intelligence–based tools for perioperative care.

Interest in the potential applications of artificial intelligence in medicine, anesthesiology, and the world at large has never been higher. The Anesthesia Research Council steering committee formed an anesthesiologist artificial intelligence expert workgroup charged with evaluating the current state of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, providing examples of future artificial intelligence applications and identifying barriers to artificial intelligence progress. The workgroup’s findings are summarized here, starting with a brief introduction to artificial intelligence for clinicians, followed by overviews of current and anticipated artificial intelligence–focused research and applications in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology’s progress in artificial intelligence is compared to that of other medical specialties, and barriers to artificial intelligence development and implementation in our specialty are discussed. The workgroup’s recommendations address stakeholders in policymaking, research, development, implementation, training, and use of artificial intelligence–based tools for perioperative care.

Importance Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings. Objective To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine. Evidence Review A systematic sampling review of parallel-group RCTs published in the top 5 general internal medicine journals by impact factor ( The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine ) between January 1, 2018, and February 23, 2023, was conducted. RCTs enrolling adults in intensive care units (ICUs) and RCTs enrolling critically ill patients who required life-sustaining interventions typically initiated in the ICU were included. All study exclusion criteria were categorized as either poorly justified, potentially justified, or strongly justified, adapting previously established criteria, independently and in duplicate. Findings In total, 225 studies were identified, 75 of which were included. The median (IQR) number of exclusion criteria per trial was 19 (14-24), with 1455 total exclusion criteria. Common exclusion criteria were related to the risk of adverse reaction to interventions (302 criteria [20.8%]), followed by inability to obtain consent (120 criteria [8.2%]), and treatment limitation decisions (97 criteria [6.7%]). Most exclusion criteria were either strongly justified (1080 criteria [74.2%]) or potentially justified (297 criteria [20.4%]), whereas 5.4% (78 criteria) were poorly justified. Of the 78 poorly justified exclusion criteria, the most common were pregnancy (19 criteria [24.4%]), communication barriers (11 criteria [14.1%]), lactation (10 criteria [12.8%]), and lack of health insurance (10 criteria [12.8%]). Overall, 45 of 75 studies (60.0%) had at least 1 poorly justified exclusion criteria. Conclusions and Relevance Most exclusion criteria in critical care medicine RCTs were strongly justifiable. Across poorly justified criteria, the most common exclusions were pregnant or lactating persons, those with communication barriers, and individuals without health insurance. This highlights the need to carefully consider exclusion criteria when designing trials to minimize the inappropriate exclusion of participants and enhance generalizability.

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate RB1 expression and survival across ovarian carcinoma histotypes and how co-occurrence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alterations and RB1 loss influences survival in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). Experimental Design: RB1 protein expression was classified by immunohistochemistry in ovarian carcinomas of 7,436 patients from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. We examined RB1 expression and germline BRCA status in a subset of 1,134 HGSC, and related genotype to overall survival (OS), tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes, and transcriptomic subtypes. Using CRISPR-Cas9, we deleted RB1 in HGSC cells with and without BRCA1 alterations to model co-loss with treatment response. We performed whole-genome and transcriptome data analyses on 126 patients with primary HGSC to characterize tumors with concurrent BRCA deficiency and RB1 loss. Results: RB1 loss was associated with longer OS in HGSC but with poorer prognosis in endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. Patients with HGSC harboring both RB1 loss and pathogenic germline BRCA variants had superior OS compared with patients with either alteration alone, and their median OS was three times longer than those without pathogenic BRCA variants and retained RB1 expression (9.3 vs. 3.1 years). Enhanced sensitivity to cisplatin and paclitaxel was seen in BRCA1-altered cells with RB1 knockout. Combined RB1 loss and BRCA deficiency correlated with transcriptional markers of enhanced IFN response, cell-cycle deregulation, and reduced epithelial–mesenchymal transition. CD8+ lymphocytes were most prevalent in BRCA-deficient HGSC with co-loss of RB1. Conclusions: Co-occurrence of RB1 loss and BRCA deficiency was associated with exceptionally long survival in patients with HGSC, potentially due to better treatment response and immune stimulation.

Abstract Ovarian cancer is a clinically and molecularly heterogeneous disease. The driving forces behind this variability are unknown. Here, we report wide variation in the expression of the DNA cytosine deaminase APOBEC3B, with elevated expression in the majority of ovarian cancer cell lines (three SDs above the mean of normal ovarian surface epithelial cells) and high-grade primary ovarian cancers. APOBEC3B is active in the nucleus of several ovarian cancer cell lines and elicits a biochemical preference for deamination of cytosines in 5′-TC dinucleotides. Importantly, examination of whole-genome sequence from 16 ovarian cancers reveals that APOBEC3B expression correlates with total mutation load as well as elevated levels of transversion mutations. In particular, high APOBEC3B expression correlates with C-to-A and C-to-G transversion mutations within 5′-TC dinucleotide motifs in early-stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer genomes, suggesting that APOBEC3B-catalyzed genomic uracil lesions are further processed by downstream DNA "repair" enzymes including error-prone translesion polymerases. These data identify a potential role for APOBEC3B in serous ovarian cancer genomic instability. Cancer Res; 73(24); 7222–31. ©2013 AACR.