A Clinical Decision Support System (KNOWBED) to Integrate Scientific Knowledge at the Bedside: Development and Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence-based medicine (EBM) paradigm requires the development of health care professionals' skills in the efficient search of evidence in the literature, and in the application of formal rules to evaluate this evidence. Incorporating this methodology into the decision-making routine of clinical practice will improve the patients' health care, increase patient safety, and optimize resources use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate a new tool (KNOWBED system) as a clinical decision support system to support scientific knowledge, enabling health care professionals to quickly carry out decision-making processes based on EBM during their routine clinical practice. METHODS: Two components integrate the KNOWBED system: a web-based knowledge station and a mobile app. A use case (bronchiolitis pathology) was selected to validate the KNOWBED system in the context of the Paediatrics Unit of the Virgen Macarena University Hospital (Seville, Spain). The validation was covered in a 3-month pilot using 2 indicators: usability and efficacy. RESULTS: The KNOWBED system has been designed, developed, and validated to support clinical decision making in mobility based on standards that have been incorporated into the routine clinical practice of health care professionals. Using this tool, health care professionals can consult existing scientific knowledge at the bedside, and access recommendations of clinical protocols established based on EBM. During the pilot project, 15 health care professionals participated and accessed the system for a total of 59 times. CONCLUSIONS: The KNOWBED system is a useful and innovative tool for health care professionals. The usability surveys filled in by the system users highlight that it is easy to access the knowledge base. This paper also sets out some improvements to be made in the future.
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 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 | 0.034 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 teacher head, 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".