Human Decision-making in an Artificial Intelligence–Driven Future in Health: Protocol for Comparative Analysis and Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care can broadly be divided into two domains: clinical health services and complex health services (ie, nonclinical health services, eg, health policy and health regulation). Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming both of these areas. Currently, humans are leaders, managers, and decision makers in complex health services. However, with the rise of AI, the time has come to ask whether humans will continue to have meaningful decision-making roles in this domain. Further, rationality has long dominated this space. What role will intuition play? OBJECTIVE: The aim is to establish a protocol of protocols to be used in the proposed research, which aims to explore whether humans will continue in meaningful decision-making roles in complex health services in an AI-driven future. METHODS: This paper describes a set of protocols for the proposed research, which is designed as a 4-step project across two phases. This paper describes the protocols for each step. The first step is a scoping review to identify and map human attributes that influence decision-making in complex health services. The research question focuses on the attributes that influence human decision-making in this context as reported in the literature. The second step is a scoping review to identify and map AI attributes that influence decision-making in complex health services. The research question focuses on attributes that influence AI decision-making in this context as reported in the literature. The third step is a comparative analysis: a narrative comparison followed by a mathematical comparison of the two sets of attributes-human and AI. This analysis will investigate whether humans have one or more unique attributes that could influence decision-making for the better. The fourth step is a simulation of a nonclinical environment in health regulation and policy into which virtual human and AI decision makers (agents) are introduced. The virtual human and AI will be based on the human and AI attributes identified in the scoping reviews. The simulation will explore, observe, and document how humans interact with AI, and whether humans are likely to compete, cooperate, or converge with AI. RESULTS: The results will be presented in tabular form, visually intuitive formats, and-in the case of the simulation-multimedia formats. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a road map for the proposed research. It also provides an example of a protocol of protocols for methods used in complex health research. While there are established guidelines for a priori protocols for scoping reviews, there is a paucity of guidance on establishing a protocol of protocols. This paper takes the first step toward building a scaffolding for future guidelines in this regard. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/42353.
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 | 0.190 | 0.378 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.008 |
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".