MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987917655 · doi:10.2196/16934

Effectiveness of Conversational Agents (Virtual Assistants) in Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2987917655 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline de Cock, Madison Milne‐Ives, Michelle Helena van Velthoven, Abrar Alturkistani, Ching Lam, Edward Meinert

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEIT HealthNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCINAHLSystematic reviewProtocol (science)MEDLINEHealth careCritical appraisalScope (computer science)PopulationGrey literatureComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineMedical educationAlternative medicinePsychological interventionNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Conversational agents (also known as chatbots) have evolved in recent decades to become multimodal, multifunctional platforms with potential to automate a diverse range of health-related activities supporting the general public, patients, and physicians. Multiple studies have reported the development of these agents, and recent systematic reviews have described the scope of use of conversational agents in health care. However, there is scarce research on the effectiveness of these systems; thus, their viability and applicability are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of conversational agents in health care and to identify limitations, adverse events, and areas for future investigation of these agents. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols will be used to structure this protocol. The focus of the systematic review is guided by a population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. A systematic search of the PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases will be conducted. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of the identified references and select studies according to the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies will then be discussed and resolved. Two reviewers will independently extract and validate data from the included studies into a standardized form and conduct quality appraisal. RESULTS: As of January 2020, we have begun a preliminary literature search and piloting of the study selection process. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review aims to clarify the effectiveness, limitations, and future applications of conversational agents in health care. Our findings may be useful to inform the future development of conversational agents and promote the personalization of patient care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16934.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.025
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.512
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207