Evaluating the Clinical Feasibility of an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Clinical Decision Support System: A Longitudinal Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We examine the feasibility of an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support system (CDSS), which combines the operationalized 2016 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments guidelines with a neural-network based individualized treatment remission prediction. Methods Due to COVID-19, the study was adapted to be completed entirely at a distance. Seven physicians recruited outpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) as per DSM-V criteria. Patients completed a minimum of one visit without the CDSS (baseline) and two subsequent visits where the CDSS was used by the physician (visit 1 and 2). The primary outcome of interest was change in session length after CDSS introduction, as a proxy for feasibility. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Results Seventeen patients enrolled in the study; 14 completed. There was no significant difference between appointment length between visits (introduction of the tool did not increase session length). 92.31% of patients and 71.43% of physicians felt that the tool was easy to use. 61.54% of the patients and 71.43% of the physicians rated that they trusted the CDSS. 46.15% of patients felt that the patient-clinician relationship significantly or somewhat improved, while the other 53.85% felt that it did not change. Conclusions Our results confirm the primary hypothesis that the integration of the tool does not increase appointment length. Findings suggest the CDSS is easy to use and may have some positive effects on the patient-physician relationship. The CDSS is feasible and ready for effectiveness studies.
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 | 0.039 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".