Leveraging Generative AI Tools to Support the Development of Digital Solutions in Health Care Research: Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionize health technology product development by improving coding quality, efficiency, documentation, quality assessment and review, and troubleshooting. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the application of a commercially available generative artificial intelligence tool (ChatGPT) to the development of a digital health behavior change intervention designed to support patient engagement in a commercial digital diabetes prevention program. METHODS: We examined the capacity, advantages, and limitations of ChatGPT to support digital product idea conceptualization, intervention content development, and the software engineering process, including software requirement generation, software design, and code production. In total, 11 evaluators, each with at least 10 years of experience in fields of study ranging from medicine and implementation science to computer science, participated in the output review process (ChatGPT vs human-generated output). All had familiarity or prior exposure to the original personalized automatic messaging system intervention. The evaluators rated the ChatGPT-produced outputs in terms of understandability, usability, novelty, relevance, completeness, and efficiency. RESULTS: Most metrics received positive scores. We identified that ChatGPT can (1) support developers to achieve high-quality products faster and (2) facilitate nontechnical communication and system understanding between technical and nontechnical team members around the development goal of rapid and easy-to-build computational solutions for medical technologies. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT can serve as a usable facilitator for researchers engaging in the software development life cycle, from product conceptualization to feature identification and user story development to code generation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04049500; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04049500.
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 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".