Assessing TDApp: An AI-based clinical decision support system for ADHD treatment recommendations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have several limitations, namely: obsolescence, lack of personalization, and insufficient patient participation. These factors may contribute to suboptimal treatment recommendation compliance and poorer clinical outcomes. APPRAISE-RS is an adaptation of the GRADE heuristic designed to generate CPG-like treatment recommendations that are automated, updated, personalized, participatory, and explanatory using a symbolic AI approach. TDApp is a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that implements APPRAISE-RS for ADHD. Methods: Two clinical trials were conducted. In both studies a total of 33 and 32 ADHD patients, respectively, requiring treatment initiation or a major treatment change were enrolled. TDApp recommendations were compared to those of selected CPGs (American Academy of Pediatrics, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Spanish Health System, Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance, and the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association) CPGs. The diversity of treatment recommendations was analyzed using Blau's index. Concordance between TDApp and CPGs recommendations was assessed by calculating the proportion of patients for whom TDApp recommended one drug that was also endorsed by CPGs. Dendrograms were plotted to compare the distance between treatment recommendations as calculated using the NbN nomenclature. Results: The first study investigated eight methods that differed in how patient and clinician preferred outcomes were handled and the extent to which TDApp tailored the analysis of evidence. The method deemed most suitable was examined in the second study, which found that 50-75% of the patients received at least one favorable treatment recommendation. TDApp evaluated over 10 drugs, including recently marketed ones, with amphetamine derivatives emerging as the most frequently recommended interventions. TDApp generated 8-12 distinct treatment recommendations with a diversity index of 0.70-0.88, which was higher than those of CPGs. The proportion of patients for whom TDApp recommendations overlapped with at least one drug endorsed by CPGs ranged from 21.9% to 100%. Dendrogram analysis revealed that TDApp was positioned on one side of the tree, while CPGs clustered together on the opposite side. Conclusions: TDApp is an advanced prototype of an CDSS offering automated, participatory, personalized, and explanatory treatment recommendations for ADHD. It represents a promising alternative to CPGs for aiding clinicians and patients in shared treatment decision-making.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».