Nursing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is predicted that digital health technologies that incorporate artificial intelligence will transform health care delivery in the next decade. Little research has explored how emerging trends in artificial intelligence-driven digital health technologies may influence the relationship between nurses and patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the findings from 4 research questions regarding emerging trends in artificial intelligence-driven digital health technologies and their influence on nursing practice across the 5 domains outlined by the Canadian Nurses Association framework: administration, clinical care, education, policy, and research. Specifically, this scoping review will examine how emerging trends will transform the roles and functions of nurses over the next 10 years and beyond. METHODS: Using an established scoping review methodology, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central, Education Resources Information Centre, Scopus, Web of Science, and Proquest databases were searched. In addition to the electronic database searches, a targeted website search will be performed to access relevant grey literature. Abstracts and full-text studies will be independently screened by 2 reviewers using prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included literature will focus on nursing and digital health technologies that incorporate artificial intelligence. Data will be charted using a structured form and narratively summarized. RESULTS: Electronic database searches have retrieved 10,318 results. The scoping review and subsequent briefing paper will be completed by the fall of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: A symposium will be held to share insights gained from this scoping review with key thought leaders and a cross section of stakeholders from administration, clinical care, education, policy, and research as well as patient advocates. The symposium will provide a forum to explore opportunities for action to advance the future of nursing in a technological world and, more specifically, nurses' delivery of compassionate care in the age of artificial intelligence. Results from the symposium will be summarized in the form of a briefing paper and widely disseminated to relevant stakeholders. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17490.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
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 | 0.095 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.019 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".