Safety and Acceptability of a Natural Language Artificial Intelligence Assistant to Deliver Clinical Follow-up to Cataract Surgery Patients: Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to an aging population, the demand for many services is exceeding the capacity of the clinical workforce. As a result, staff are facing a crisis of burnout from being pressured to deliver high-volume workloads, driving increasing costs for providers. Artificial intelligence (AI), in the form of conversational agents, presents a possible opportunity to enable efficiency in the delivery of care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, usability, and acceptability of Dora agent: Ufonia's autonomous voice conversational agent, an AI-enabled autonomous telemedicine call for the detection of postoperative cataract surgery patients who require further assessment. The objectives of this study are to establish Dora's efficacy in comparison with an expert clinician, determine baseline sensitivity and specificity for the detection of true complications, evaluate patient acceptability, collect evidence for cost-effectiveness, and capture data to support further development and evaluation. METHODS: Using an implementation science construct, the interdisciplinary study will be a mixed methods phase 1 pilot establishing interobserver reliability of the system, usability, and acceptability. This will be done using the following scales and frameworks: the system usability scale; assessment of Health Information Technology Interventions in Evidence-Based Medicine Evaluation Framework; the telehealth usability questionnaire; and the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-up, Spread and Suitability framework. RESULTS: The evaluation is expected to show that conversational technology can be used to conduct an accurate assessment and that it is acceptable to different populations with different backgrounds. In addition, the results will demonstrate how successfully the system can be delivered in organizations with different clinical pathways and how it can be integrated with their existing platforms. CONCLUSIONS: The project's key contributions will be evidence of the effectiveness of AI voice conversational agents and their associated usability and acceptability. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/27227.
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 | 0.030 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".