You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety II (MP33)1 May 2024MP33-17 COPING WITH COMPLICATIONS THAT OCCUR AFTER PROSTATE BIOPSY FOR SATISFACTORY EVALUATION OF CALL SERVICE USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Yong Nam Gwon, Ukrae Cho, Seung Ryong Chong, Ji Yeon Han, Do Kyung Kim, Seung Whan Doo, Won Jae Yang, Kyeongmin Kim, Sung Ryul Shim, Jaehun Jung, and Jae Heon Kim Yong Nam GwonYong Nam Gwon , Ukrae ChoUkrae Cho , Seung Ryong ChongSeung Ryong Chong , Ji Yeon HanJi Yeon Han , Do Kyung KimDo Kyung Kim , Seung Whan DooSeung Whan Doo , Won Jae YangWon Jae Yang , Kyeongmin KimKyeongmin Kim , Sung Ryul ShimSung Ryul Shim , Jaehun JungJaehun Jung , and Jae Heon KimJae Heon Kim View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009520.30626.80.17AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Prostate biopsy is well-established test for prostate cancer, but patients may suffer anxiety about complications. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled AI to inform patients of potential biopsy complications and manage them. This pilot study evaluated an AI-based call's ability to inform patients about potential post-biopsy complications and the need for prompt care. METHODS: From Oct 2022 to Dec 2023, 42 patients aged 40-70, with no cognitive impairments, and first-time prostate biopsy were enrolled. The 'Ansim-call' was established to provide information, monitor and manage the complications. Patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: AI Ansim-call (Group 1), human Ansim-call (Group 2), and no call (Group 3). Primary outcome was satisfaction with the call (Likert scale). Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with AI calls (Likert scale), satisfaction with managing complications (Likert scale and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)), and anxiety for complications (the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and VAS). RESULTS: Total 42 patients, 14 in each group, were enrolled. Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between groups. Satisfaction with call averaged 4.20 (SD 0.56) in Group 1 and 4.71 (SD 0.47) in Group 2, with significant difference. AI calls satisfaction averaged 4.00 (SD 0.65). Satisfaction about managing complication using Likert scale averaged 4.13 (SD 0.52) , 4.43 (SD 0.76), and 3.79 (SD 0.80) showing no significant difference, but when using VAS, averages of 8.33 (SD 1.23), 8.57 (SD 1.45), and 7.07 (SD 1.86), respectively, showed significant differences. Anxiety about complications using STAI averaged 40.00 (SD 10.54), 39.14 (SD 8.29), and 35.00 (SD 9.46) with no significant differences. However, anxiety using VAS averaged 5.07 (SD 2.79), 2.21 (SD 2.64), and 3.50 (SD 2.28) showing significant differences. Multiple regression analysis showed that T1 stage patients had significantly higher satisfaction with the call and lower anxiety than T2. AI calls resulted in higher anxiety VAS scores compared to human calls. CONCLUSIONS: While AI was inferior to humans in some areas, most results showed no significant differences, and made better outcomes than no-call. Prostate biopsy is the standard diagnostic test for prostate cancer, with no proactive methods to detect complications and reassure patients. This pilot study is the first to use AI for detecting complications and reassuring patients, showing promising results. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e567 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Yong Nam Gwon More articles by this author Ukrae Cho More articles by this author Seung Ryong Chong More articles by this author Ji Yeon Han More articles by this author Do Kyung Kim More articles by this author Seung Whan Doo More articles by this author Won Jae Yang More articles by this author Kyeongmin Kim More articles by this author Sung Ryul Shim More articles by this author Jaehun Jung More articles by this author Jae Heon Kim More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gwon et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: