The Role of AI in Serious Games and Gamification for Health: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and game-based methods such as serious games or gamification are both emerging technologies and methodologies in health care. The merging of the two could provide greater advantages, particularly in the field of therapeutic interventions in medicine. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review sought to generate an overview of the currently existing literature on the connection of AI and game-based approaches in health care. The primary objectives were to cluster studies by disease and health topic addressed, level of care, and AI or games technology. METHODS: For this scoping review, the databases PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Cochrane Library, and PubPsych were comprehensively searched on February 2, 2022. Two independent authors conducted the screening process using Rayyan software (Rayyan Systems Inc). Only original studies published in English since 1992 were eligible for inclusion. The studies had to involve aspects of therapy or education in medicine and the use of AI in combination with game-based approaches. Each publication was coded for basic characteristics, including the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) criteria; the level of evidence; the disease and health issue; the level of care; the game variant; the AI technology; and the function type. Inductive coding was used to identify the patterns, themes, and categories in the data. Individual codings were analyzed and summarized narratively. RESULTS: A total of 16 papers met all inclusion criteria. Most of the studies (10/16, 63%) were conducted in disease rehabilitation, tackling motion impairment (eg, after stroke or trauma). Another cluster of studies (3/16, 19%) was found in the detection and rehabilitation of cognitive impairment. Machine learning was the main AI technology applied and serious games the main game-based approach used. However, direct interaction between the technologies occurred only in 3 (19%) of the 16 studies. The included studies all show very limited quality evidence. From the patients' and healthy individuals' perspective, generally high usability, motivation, and satisfaction were found. CONCLUSIONS: The review shows limited quality of evidence for the combination of AI and games in health care. Most of the included studies were nonrandomized pilot studies with few participants (14/16, 88%). This leads to a high risk for a range of biases and limits overall conclusions. However, the first results present a broad scope of possible applications, especially in motion and cognitive impairment, as well as positive perceptions by patients. In future, the development of adaptive game designs with direct interaction between AI and games seems promising and should be a topic for future reviews.
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 | 0.024 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".