The Role of AI in Serious Games and Gamification for Health: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and game-based methods such as serious games or gamification are both emerging technologies and methodologies in health care. The merging of the two could provide greater advantages, particularly in the field of therapeutic interventions in medicine. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review sought to generate an overview of the currently existing literature on the connection of AI and game-based approaches in health care. The primary objectives were to cluster studies by disease and health topic addressed, level of care, and AI or games technology. METHODS: For this scoping review, the databases PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Cochrane Library, and PubPsych were comprehensively searched on February 2, 2022. Two independent authors conducted the screening process using Rayyan software (Rayyan Systems Inc). Only original studies published in English since 1992 were eligible for inclusion. The studies had to involve aspects of therapy or education in medicine and the use of AI in combination with game-based approaches. Each publication was coded for basic characteristics, including the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) criteria; the level of evidence; the disease and health issue; the level of care; the game variant; the AI technology; and the function type. Inductive coding was used to identify the patterns, themes, and categories in the data. Individual codings were analyzed and summarized narratively. RESULTS: A total of 16 papers met all inclusion criteria. Most of the studies (10/16, 63%) were conducted in disease rehabilitation, tackling motion impairment (eg, after stroke or trauma). Another cluster of studies (3/16, 19%) was found in the detection and rehabilitation of cognitive impairment. Machine learning was the main AI technology applied and serious games the main game-based approach used. However, direct interaction between the technologies occurred only in 3 (19%) of the 16 studies. The included studies all show very limited quality evidence. From the patients' and healthy individuals' perspective, generally high usability, motivation, and satisfaction were found. CONCLUSIONS: The review shows limited quality of evidence for the combination of AI and games in health care. Most of the included studies were nonrandomized pilot studies with few participants (14/16, 88%). This leads to a high risk for a range of biases and limits overall conclusions. However, the first results present a broad scope of possible applications, especially in motion and cognitive impairment, as well as positive perceptions by patients. In future, the development of adaptive game designs with direct interaction between AI and games seems promising and should be a topic for future reviews.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,096 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».