Using Artificial Intelligence to Detect Risk of Family Violence: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite the implementation of prevention strategies, family violence continues to be a prevalent issue worldwide. Current strategies to reduce family violence have demonstrated mixed success and innovative approaches are needed urgently to prevent the occurrence of family violence. Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into prevention strategies is gaining research attention, particularly the use of textual or voice signal data to detect individuals at risk of perpetrating family violence. However, no review to date has collated extant research regarding how accurate AI is at identifying individuals who are at risk of perpetrating family violence. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of AI models in differentiating between individuals at risk of engaging in family violence versus those who are not using textual or voice signal data. METHODS: The following databases will be searched from conception to the search date: IEEE Xplore, PubMed, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost (Psychology and Behavioral Sciences collection), and Computers and Applied Sciences Complete. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I will also be used to search the grey literature. Studies will be included if they report on human adults and use machine learning to differentiate between low and high risk of family violence perpetration. Studies may use voice signal data or linguistic (textual) data and must report levels of accuracy in determining risk. In the data screening and full-text review and quality analysis phases, 2 researchers will review the search results and discrepancies and decisions will be resolved through masked review of a third researcher. Results will be reported in a narrative synthesis. In addition, a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted using the area under the receiver operating curve reported in the included studies, assuming sufficient eligible studies are identified. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool in nonrandomized studies of interventions. RESULTS: As of October 2024, the search has not commenced. The review will document the state of the research concerning the accuracy of AI models in detecting the risk of family violence perpetration using textual or voice signal data. Results will be presented in the form of a narrative synthesis. Results of the meta-analysis will be summarized in tabular form and using a forest plot. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will clarify the state of the literature on the accuracy of machine learning models to identify individuals who are at high risk of perpetuating family violence. Findings may be used to inform the development of AI and machine learning models that can be used to support possible prevention strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023481174; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=481174. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/54966.
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 | 0,074 | 0,115 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,029 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,069 | 0,007 |
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 ».