MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386588002 · doi:10.2196/48476

Physicians’ Perspectives on AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Interview Study of the CURATE.AI Personalized Dose Optimization Platform

2023· article· en· W4386588002 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Smrithi Vijayakumar, V Vien Lee, Qiao Ying Leong, Soo Jung Hong, Agata Blasiak, Dean Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsThematic analysisMedical educationPerceptionClinical PracticeClinical decision support systemDosingPersonalized medicineProcess (computing)Knowledge managementPsychologyQualitative researchMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDecision support systemFamily medicineBioinformaticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physicians play a key role in integrating new clinical technology into care practices through user feedback and growth propositions to developers of the technology. As physicians are stakeholders involved through the technology iteration process, understanding their roles as users can provide nuanced insights into the workings of these technologies that are being explored. Therefore, understanding physicians' perceptions can be critical toward clinical validation, implementation, and downstream adoption. Given the increasing prevalence of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), there remains a need to gain an in-depth understanding of physicians' perceptions and expectations toward their downstream implementation. This paper explores physicians' perceptions of integrating CURATE.AI, a novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based and clinical stage personalized dosing CDSSs, into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand physicians' perspectives of integrating CURATE.AI for clinical work and to gather insights on considerations of the implementation of AI-based CDSS tools. METHODS: A total of 12 participants completed semistructured interviews examining their knowledge, experience, attitudes, risks, and future course of the personalized combination therapy dosing platform, CURATE.AI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded manually. The data were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 3 broad themes and 9 subthemes were identified through thematic analysis. The themes covered considerations that physicians perceived as significant across various stages of new technology development, including trial, clinical implementation, and mass adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The study laid out the various ways physicians interpreted an AI-based personalized dosing CDSS, CURATE.AI, for their clinical practice. The research pointed out that physicians' expectations during the different stages of technology exploration can be nuanced and layered with expectations of implementation that are relevant for technology developers and researchers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.293
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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