Development of Personas and Journey Maps for Artificial Intelligence Agents Supporting the Use of Health Big Data: Human-Centered Design Approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) requires new approaches for human-AI interfaces that are different from classic human-computer interfaces. In developing a system that is conducive to the analysis and use of health big data (HBD), reflecting the empirical characteristics of users who have performed HBD analysis is the most crucial aspect to consider. Recently, human-centered design methodology, a field of user-centered design, has been expanded and is used not only to develop types of products but also technologies and services. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to integrate and analyze users' experiences along the HBD analysis journey using the human-centered design methodology and reflect them in the development of AI agents that support future HBD analysis. This research aims to help accelerate the development of novel human-AI interfaces for AI agents that support the analysis and use of HBD, which will be urgently needed in the near future. METHODS: Using human-centered design methodology, we collected data through shadowing and in-depth interviews with 16 people with experience in analyzing and using HBD. We identified users' empirical characteristics, emotions, pain points, and needs related to HBD analysis and use and created personas and journey maps. RESULTS: The general characteristics of participants (n=16) were as follows: the majority were in their 40s (n=6, 38%) and held a PhD degree (n=10, 63%). Professors (n=7, 44%) and health care personnel (n=10, 63%) represented the largest professional groups. Participants' experiences with big data analysis varied, with 25% (n=4) being beginners and 38% (n=6) having extensive experience. Common analysis methods included statistical analysis (n=7, 44%) and data mining (n=6, 38%). Qualitative findings from shadowing and in-depth interviews revealed key challenges: lack of knowledge on using analytical solutions, crisis management difficulties during errors, and inadequate understanding of health care data and clinical decision-making, especially among non-health care professionals. Three types of personas and journey maps-health care professionals as big data analysis beginners, health care professionals who have experience in big data analytics, and non-health care professionals who are experts in big data analytics-were derived. They showed a need for personalized platforms tailored to the user level, appropriate direction through a navigation function, a crisis management support system, communication and sharing among users, and expert linkage service. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge obtained from this study can be leveraged in designing an AI agent to support future HBD analysis and use. This is expected to further increase the usability of HBD by helping users perform effective use of HBD more easily.
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 | 0,010 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».