Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has a considerable present and future influence on healthcare. Nurses, representing the largest proportion of healthcare workers, are set to immensely benefit from this technology. However, the overall adoption of new technologies by nurses is quite slow, and the use of AI in nursing is considered to be in its infancy. The current literature on AI in nursing lacks conceptual clarity and consensus, which is affecting clinical practice, research activities, and theory development. Therefore, to set the foundations for nursing AI knowledge development, the purpose of this concept analysis is to clarify the conceptual components of AI in nursing and to determine its conceptual maturity. A concept analysis following Morse's approach was conducted, which examined definitions, characteristics, preconditions, outcomes, and boundaries on the state of AI in nursing. A total of 18 quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and reviews related to AI in nursing were retrieved from the CINAHL and EMBASE databases using a Boolean search. Presently, the concept of AI in nursing is immature. The characteristics and preconditions of the use of AI in nursing are mixed between and within each other. The preconditions and outcomes on the use of AI in nursing are diverse and indiscriminately reported. As for boundaries, they can be more distinguished between robots, sensors, and clinical decision support systems, but these lines can become more blurred in the future. As of 2021, the use of AI in nursing holds much promise for the profession, but conceptual and theoretical issues remain.
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 | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".