Considering Clinician Competencies for the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence–Based Tools in Health Care: Findings From a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools in the care of individual patients and patient populations is rapidly expanding. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to systematically identify research on provider competencies needed for the use of AI in clinical settings. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify articles published between January 1, 2009, and May 1, 2020, from MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases, using search queries for terms related to health care professionals (eg, medical, nursing, and pharmacy) and their professional development in all phases of clinical education, AI-based tools in all settings of clinical practice, and professional education domains of competencies and performance. Limits were provided for English language, studies on humans with abstracts, and settings in the United States. RESULTS: The searches identified 3476 records, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. These studies described the use of AI in clinical practice and measured at least one aspect of clinician competence. While many studies measured the performance of the AI-based tool, only 4 measured clinician performance in terms of the knowledge, skills, or attitudes needed to understand and effectively use the new tools being tested. These 4 articles primarily focused on the ability of AI to enhance patient care and clinical decision-making by improving information flow and display, specifically for physicians. CONCLUSIONS: While many research studies were identified that investigate the potential effectiveness of using AI technologies in health care, very few address specific competencies that are needed by clinicians to use them effectively. This highlights a critical gap.
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 | 0.055 | 0.227 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".