Implementation of Chatbot Technology in Health Care: Protocol for a Bibliometric Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Chatbots have the potential to increase people's access to quality health care. However, the implementation of chatbot technology in the health care system is unclear due to the scarce analysis of publications on the adoption of chatbot in health and medical settings. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a protocol of a bibliometric analysis aimed at offering the public insights into the current state and emerging trends in research related to the use of chatbot technology for promoting health. METHODS: In this bibliometric analysis, we will select published papers from the databases of CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science that pertain to chatbot technology and its applications in health care. Our search strategy includes keywords such as "chatbot," "virtual agent," "virtual assistant," "conversational agent," "conversational AI," "interactive agent," "health," and "healthcare." Five researchers who are AI engineers and clinicians will independently review the titles and abstracts of selected papers to determine their eligibility for a full-text review. The corresponding author (ZN) will serve as a mediator to address any discrepancies and disputes among the 5 reviewers. Our analysis will encompass various publication patterns of chatbot research, including the number of annual publications, their geographic or institutional distribution, and the number of annual grants supporting chatbot research, and further summarize the methodologies used in the development of health-related chatbots, along with their features and applications in health care settings. Software tool VOSViewer (version 1.6.19; Leiden University) will be used to construct and visualize bibliometric networks. RESULTS: The preparation for the bibliometric analysis began on December 3, 2021, when the research team started the process of familiarizing themselves with the software tools that may be used in this analysis, VOSViewer and CiteSpace, during which they consulted 3 librarians at the Yale University regarding search terms and tentative results. Tentative searches on the aforementioned databases yielded a total of 2340 papers. The official search phase started on July 27, 2023. Our goal is to complete the screening of papers and the analysis by February 15, 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI Inc), have sparked numerous discussions within the health care industry regarding their impact on human health. Chatbot technology holds substantial promise for advancing health care systems worldwide. However, developing a sophisticated chatbot capable of precise interaction with health care consumers, delivering personalized care, and providing accurate health-related information and knowledge remain considerable challenges. This bibliometric analysis seeks to fill the knowledge gap in the existing literature on health-related chatbots, entailing their applications, the software used in their development, and their preferred functionalities among users. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54349.
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 | 0,115 | 0,272 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,047 | 0,057 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,071 | 0,011 |
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 ».