Artificial intelligence‐based clinical decision support in modern medical physics: Selection, acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in machine and deep learning based on an increased availability of clinical data have fueled renewed interest in computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). CDSSs have shown great potential to improve healthcare, increase patient safety and reduce costs. However, the use of CDSSs is not without pitfalls, as an inadequate or faulty CDSS can potentially deteriorate the quality of healthcare and put patients at risk. In addition, the adoption of a CDSS might fail because its intended users ignore the output of the CDSS due to lack of trust, relevancy or actionability. AIM: In this article, we provide guidance based on literature for the different aspects involved in the adoption of a CDSS with a special focus on machine and deep learning based systems: selection, acceptance testing, commissioning, implementation and quality assurance. RESULTS: A rigorous selection process will help identify the CDSS that best fits the preferences and requirements of the local site. Acceptance testing will make sure that the selected CDSS fulfills the defined specifications and satisfies the safety requirements. The commissioning process will prepare the CDSS for safe clinical use at the local site. An effective implementation phase should result in an orderly roll out of the CDSS to the well-trained end-users whose expectations have been managed. And finally, quality assurance will make sure that the performance of the CDSS is maintained and that any issues are promptly identified and solved. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a systematic approach to the adoption of a CDSS will help avoid pitfalls, improve patient safety and increase the chances of success.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it