Applying AI and Guidelines to Assist Medical Students in Recognizing Patients With Heart Failure: Protocol for a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is transforming both clinical practice and medical education. AI-based systems aim to improve the efficacy of clinical tasks, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and tailoring treatment delivery. As it becomes increasingly prevalent in health care for high-quality patient care, it is critical for health care providers to use the systems responsibly to mitigate bias, ensure effective outcomes, and provide safe clinical practices. In this study, the clinical task is the identification of heart failure (HF) prior to surgery with the intention of enhancing clinical decision-making skills. HF is a common and severe disease, but detection remains challenging due to its subtle manifestation, often concurrent with other medical conditions, and the absence of a simple and effective diagnostic test. While advanced HF algorithms have been developed, the use of these AI-based systems to enhance clinical decision-making in medical education remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: This research protocol is to demonstrate our study design, systematic procedures for selecting surgical cases from electronic health records, and interventions. The primary objective of this study is to measure the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving HF recognition before surgery, the second objective is to evaluate the impact of inaccurate AI recommendations, and the third objective is to explore the relationship between the inclination to accept AI recommendations and their accuracy. METHODS: Our study used a 3 × 2 factorial design (intervention type × order of prepost sets) for this randomized trial with medical students. The student participants are asked to complete a 30-minute e-learning module that includes key information about the intervention and a 5-question quiz, and a 60-minute review of 20 surgical cases to determine the presence of HF. To mitigate selection bias in the pre- and posttests, we adopted a feature-based systematic sampling procedure. From a pool of 703 expert-reviewed surgical cases, 20 were selected based on features such as case complexity, model performance, and positive and negative labels. This study comprises three interventions: (1) a direct AI-based recommendation with a predicted HF score, (2) an indirect AI-based recommendation gauged through the area under the curve metric, and (3) an HF guideline-based intervention. RESULTS: As of July 2023, 62 of the enrolled medical students have fulfilled this study's participation, including the completion of a short quiz and the review of 20 surgical cases. The subject enrollment commenced in August 2022 and will end in December 2023, with the goal of recruiting 75 medical students in years 3 and 4 with clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a study protocol for the randomized trial, measuring the effectiveness of interventions using AI and HF guidelines among medical students to enhance HF recognition in preoperative care with electronic health record data. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49842.
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 | 0.041 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.010 |
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".