Applying artificial intelligence to clinical decision support in mental health: What have we learned?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) augmented with artificial intelligence (AI) models are emerging as potentially valuable tools in healthcare. Despite their promise, the development and implementation of these systems typically encounter several barriers, hindering the potential for widespread adoption. Here we present a case study of a recently developed AI-CDSS, Aifred Health, aimed at supporting the selection and management of treatment in major depressive disorder. We consider both the principles espoused during development and testing of this AI-CDSS, as well as the practical solutions developed to facilitate implementation. We also propose recommendations to consider throughout the building, validation, training, and implementation process of an AI-CDSS. These recommendations include: identifying the key problem, selecting the type of machine learning approach based on this problem, determining the type of data required, determining the format required for a CDSS to provide clinical utility, gathering physician and patient feedback, and validating the tool across multiple settings. Finally, we explore the potential benefits of widespread adoption of these systems, while balancing these against implementation challenges such as ensuring systems do not disrupt the clinical workflow, and designing systems in a manner that engenders trust on the part of end users.
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 | 0.056 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".