MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200742808 · doi:10.2196/27850

Chatbot for Health Care and Oncology Applications Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3200742808 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Lu Xu, Leslie Sanders, Kay Li, James C. L. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChatbotWorkflowHealth careSafeguardingClinical decision support systemMedicineKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedical educationArtificial intelligenceNursingDecision support systemPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chatbot is a timely topic applied in various fields, including medicine and health care, for human-like knowledge transfer and communication. Machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence, has been proven particularly applicable in health care, with the ability for complex dialog management and conversational flexibility. OBJECTIVE: This review article aims to report on the recent advances and current trends in chatbot technology in medicine. A brief historical overview, along with the developmental progress and design characteristics, is first introduced. The focus will be on cancer therapy, with in-depth discussions and examples of diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, patient support, workflow efficiency, and health promotion. In addition, this paper will explore the limitations and areas of concern, highlighting ethical, moral, security, technical, and regulatory standards and evaluation issues to explain the hesitancy in implementation. METHODS: A search of the literature published in the past 20 years was conducted using the IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and OVID databases. The screening of chatbots was guided by the open-access Botlist directory for health care components and further divided according to the following criteria: diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, support, workflow, and health promotion. RESULTS: Even after addressing these issues and establishing the safety or efficacy of chatbots, human elements in health care will not be replaceable. Therefore, chatbots have the potential to be integrated into clinical practice by working alongside health practitioners to reduce costs, refine workflow efficiencies, and improve patient outcomes. Other applications in pandemic support, global health, and education are yet to be fully explored. CONCLUSIONS: Further research and interdisciplinary collaboration could advance this technology to dramatically improve the quality of care for patients, rebalance the workload for clinicians, and revolutionize the practice of medicine.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.447
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations528
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207