Artificial Intelligence -based technologies in nursing: A scoping literature review of the evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on technologies based on artificial intelligence in healthcare has increased during the last decade, with applications showing great potential in assisting and improving care. However, introducing these technologies into nursing can raise concerns related to data bias in the context of training algorithms and potential implications for certain populations. Little evidence exists in the extant literature regarding the efficacious application of many artificial intelligence -based health technologies used in healthcare. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize currently available state-of the-art research in artificial intelligence -based technologies applied in nursing practice. DESIGN: Scoping review METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and IEEE Xplore were searched for relevant articles with queries that combine names and terms related to nursing, artificial intelligence and machine learning methods. Included studies focused on developing or validating artificial intelligence -based technologies with a clear description of their impacts on nursing. We excluded non-experimental studies and research targeted at robotics, nursing management and technologies used in nursing research and education. RESULTS: A total of 7610 articles published between January 2010 and March 2021 were revealed, with 93 articles included in this review. Most studies explored the technology development (n = 55, 59.1%) and formation (testing) (n = 28, 30.1%) phases, followed by implementation (n = 9, 9.7%) and operational (n = 1, 1.1%) phases. The vast majority (73.1%) of studies provided evidence with a descriptive design (level VI) while only a small portion (4.3%) were randomised controlled trials (level II). The study aims, settings and methods were poorly described in the articles, and discussion of ethical considerations were lacking in 36.6% of studies. Additionally, one-third of papers (33.3%) were reported without the involvement of nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary research on applications of artificial intelligence -based technologies in nursing mainly cover the earlier stages of technology development, leaving scarce evidence of the impact of these technologies and implementation aspects into practice. The content of research reported is varied. Therefore, guidelines on research reporting and implementing artificial intelligence -based technologies in nursing are needed. Furthermore, integrating basic knowledge of artificial intelligence -related technologies and their applications in nursing education is imperative, and interventions to increase the inclusion of nurses throughout the technology research and development process is needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it