An AI-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Antibiotic Therapy in Sepsis (KINBIOTICS): Use Case Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Antimicrobial resistances pose significant challenges in health care systems. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) represent a potential strategy for promoting a more targeted and guideline-based use of antibiotics. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into these systems has the potential to support physicians in selecting the most effective drug therapy for a given patient. Objective: This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of an AI-based CDSS pilot version for antibiotic therapy in sepsis patients and identify facilitating and inhibiting conditions for its implementation in intensive care medicine. Methods: The evaluation was conducted in 2 steps, using a qualitative methodology. Initially, expert interviews were conducted, in which intensive care physicians were asked to assess the AI-based recommendations for antibiotic therapy in terms of plausibility, layout, and design. Subsequently, focus group interviews were conducted to examine the technology acceptance of the AI-based CDSS. The interviews were anonymized and evaluated using content analysis. Results: In terms of the feasibility, barriers included variability in previous antibiotic administration practices, which affected the predictive ability of AI recommendations, and the increased effort required to justify deviations from these recommendations. Physicians' confidence in accepting or rejecting recommendations depended on their level of professional experience. The ability to re-evaluate CDSS recommendations and an intuitive, user-friendly system design were identified as factors that enhanced acceptance and usability. Overall, barriers included low levels of digitization in clinical practice, limited availability of cross-sectoral data, and negative previous experiences with CDSSs. Conversely, facilitators to CDSS implementation were potential time savings, physicians' openness to adopting new technologies, and positive previous experiences. Conclusions: Early integration of users is beneficial for both the identification of relevant context factors and the further development of an effective CDSS. Overall, the potential of AI-based CDSSs is offset by inhibiting contextual conditions that impede its acceptance and implementation. The advancement of AI-based CDSSs and the mitigation of these inhibiting conditions are crucial for the realization of its full potential.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».