Professional representation of conversational agents for health care: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to examine the professional representation of conversational agents that are used for health care. Professional characteristics associated with these agents will be identified, and the prevalence of these characteristics will be determined. INTRODUCTION: Conversational agents that are used for health care lack the qualifications and capabilities of real health professionals, but this fact may not be clear to some patients and health seekers. This problem may be exacerbated when conversational agents are described as health professionals or are given professional titles or appearances. To date, the professional representation of conversational agents that are used for health care has received little attention in the literature. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include scholarly publications on conversational agents that are used for health care, particularly descriptive/developmental case studies and intervention/evaluation studies. This review will consider conversational agents designed for patients and health seekers, but not health professionals or trainees. Agents addressing physical and/or mental health will be considered. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate), ACM Guide to Computing Literature (ACM Digital Library), and IEEE Xplore (IEEE). The extracted data will include study characteristics, basic characteristics of the conversational agent, and characteristics relating to the professional representation of the conversational agent. The extracted data will be presented in tabular format and summarized using frequency analysis. These results will be accompanied by a narrative summary.
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 | 0.148 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.012 |
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".