Challenges and Facilitation Approaches for the Participatory Design of AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In the last few years, there has been an increasing interest in the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS). However, there are barriers to the successful implementation of such systems in practice, including the lack of acceptance of these systems. Participatory approaches aim to involve future users in designing applications such as CDSS to be more acceptable, feasible, and fundamentally more relevant for practice. The development of technologies based on AI, however, challenges the process of user involvement and related methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to summarize and present the main approaches, methods, practices, and specific challenges for participatory research and development of AI-based decision support systems involving clinicians. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute approach to scoping reviews. The search for eligible studies was conducted in the databases MEDLINE via PubMed; ACM Digital Library; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health; and PsycInfo. The following search filters, adapted to each database, were used: Period January 01, 2012, to October 31, 2023, English and German studies only, abstract available. The scoping review will include studies that involve the development, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of AI-based CDSS (hybrid and data-driven AI approaches). Clinical staff must be involved in a participatory manner. Data retrieval will be accompanied by a manual gray literature search. Potential publications will then be exported into reference management software, and duplicates will be removed. Afterward, the obtained set of papers will be transferred into a systematic review management tool. All publications will be screened, extracted, and analyzed: title and abstract screening will be carried out by 2 independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by involving a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool prepared for the study. RESULTS: This scoping review protocol was registered on March 11, 2023, at the Open Science Framework. The full-text screening had already started at that time. Of the 3,118 studies screened by title and abstract, 31 were included in the full-text screening. Data collection and analysis as well as manuscript preparation are planned for the second and third quarter of 2024. The manuscript should be submitted towards the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This review will describe the current state of knowledge on participatory development of AI-based decision support systems. The aim is to identify knowledge gaps and provide research impetus. It also aims to provide relevant information for policy makers and practitioners. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58185.
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 | 0,140 | 0,126 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,053 | 0,014 |
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 ».