AIAnisa Idris

Anisa Idris

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Anisa Idris has a total of 3 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Periodic Manual Algorithm Updates and Generalizability: A Developer’s Response. Comment on “Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study”

    by Stephen Gilbert, Matthew Fenech, Anisa Idris, Ewelina Türk

    Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). N/A


  • Open Access

    Periodic Manual Algorithm Updates and Generalizability: A Developer’s Response. Comment on “Evaluation of Four Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Self-Diagnosis Apps on Three Diagnoses: Two-Year Follow-Up Study” (Preprint)

    by Stephen Gilbert, Matthew Fenech, Anisa Idris, Ewelina Türk

    Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). We have several comments on the recent publication of [1], in which repeated testing of four symptom assessment applications with clinical vignettes was carried out to look for “hints of ‘non-locked learning algorithms’”. As the developer of one of the symptom assessment applications studied by [1], we are supportive of studies evaluating app performance, however there are important limitations in the methodology of the study. Most importantly, the methodology used in this study is not capable of addressing its main objective. The approach used to look for evidence of non-locked algorithms was the quantification of differences in performance using three ophthalmology vignettes, first in 2018 then in 2020. This methodology, although highly limited due to the use of only three vignettes in one medical specialism, could be used to detect changes in app performance over time. It however cannot be used to distinguish between non-locked algorithms and the manual updating of the apps’ medical intelligence, through the normal process of manual release of updated app versions.