MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133406856 · doi:10.2196/26911

Development and Early Feasibility of Chatbots for Educating Patients With Lung Cancer and Their Caregivers in Japan: Mixed Methods Study

2021· article· en· W3133406856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuki Kataoka, Tomoyasu Takemura, Munehiko Sasajima, Naoki Katoh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYasuda Memorial Medical Foundation
KeywordsChatbotTest (biology)MedicineLung cancerService (business)Family medicinePsychologyMedical educationNursingWorld Wide WebComputer scienceOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chatbots are artificial intelligence-driven programs that interact with people. The applications of this technology include the collection and delivery of information, generation of and responding to inquiries, collection of end user feedback, and the delivery of personalized health and medical information to patients through cellphone- and web-based platforms. However, no chatbots have been developed for patients with lung cancer and their caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the early feasibility of a chatbot designed to improve the knowledge of symptom management among patients with lung cancer in Japan and their caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study that included a web-based anonymized questionnaire survey administered to physicians and paramedics from June to July 2019 (phase 1). Two physicians conducted a content analysis of the questionnaire to curate frequently asked questions (FAQs; phase 2). Based on these FAQs, we developed and integrated a chatbot into a social network service (phase 3). The physicians and paramedics involved in phase I then tested this chatbot (α test; phase 4). Thereafter, patients with lung cancer and their caregivers tested this chatbot (β test; phase 5). RESULTS: We obtained 246 questions from 15 health care providers in phase 1. We curated 91 FAQs and their corresponding responses in phase 2. In total, 11 patients and 1 caregiver participated in the β test in phase 5. The participants were asked 60 questions, 8 (13%) of which did not match the appropriate categories. After the β test, 7 (64%) participants responded to the postexperimental questionnaire. The mean satisfaction score was 2.7 (SD 0.5) points out of 5. CONCLUSIONS: Medical staff providing care to patients with lung cancer can use the categories specified in this chatbot to educate patients on how they can manage their symptoms. Further studies are required to improve chatbots in terms of interaction with patients.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207