Using a Simulation Centre to Evaluate the Effect of anArtificial Intelligence-Powered Clinical Decision Support System for Depression Treatment on the Physician-Patient Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective Aifred is an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support system (CDSS) for the treatment of major depression. Here, we explore use of a simulation centre environment in evaluating the usability of Aifred, particularly its impact on the physician-patient interaction. Methods Twenty psychiatry and family medicine attending staff and residents were recruited to complete a 2.5-hour study at a clinical interaction simulation centre with standardized patients. Each physician had the option of using the CDSS to inform their treatment choice in three 10-minute clinical scenarios with standardized patients portraying mild, moderate, and severe episodes of major depression. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires, scenario observations, interviews, and standardized patient feedback. Results All twenty participants completed the study. Initial results indicate that the tool was acceptable to clinicians and feasible for use during clinical encounters. Clinicians indicated a willingness to use the tool in real clinical practice, a significant degree of trust in the AI’s predictions to assist with treatment selection, and reported that the tool helped increase patient understanding of and trust in treatment. The simulation environment allowed for the evaluation of the tool’s impact on the physician-patient interaction. Conclusions The simulation centre allowed for direct observations of clinician use and impact of the tool on the clinician-patient interaction prior to clinical studies. It may therefore offer a useful and important environment in the early testing of new technological tools. The present results will inform further tool development and clinician training materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".