MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394009485 · doi:10.7759/cureus.57728

AI-Driven Clinical Decision Support Systems: An Ongoing Pursuit of Potential

2024· article· en· W4394009485 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical decision support systemWorkflowInterpretabilityUsabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceHealth careTransformative learningDecision support systemKnowledge managementData sciencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are essential tools in contemporary healthcare, enhancing clinicians' decisions and patient outcomes. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) is now revolutionizing CDSS even further. This review delves into AI technologies transforming CDSS, their applications in healthcare decision-making, associated challenges, and the potential trajectory toward fully realizing AI-CDSS's potential. The review begins by laying the groundwork with a definition of CDSS and its function within the healthcare field. It then highlights the increasingly significant role that AI is playing in enhancing CDSS effectiveness and efficiency, underlining its evolving prominence in shaping healthcare practices. It examines the integration of AI technologies into CDSS, including machine learning algorithms like neural networks and decision trees, natural language processing, and deep learning. It also addresses the challenges associated with AI integration, such as interpretability and bias. We then shift to AI applications within CDSS, with real-life examples of AI-driven diagnostics, personalized treatment recommendations, risk prediction, early intervention, and AI-assisted clinical documentation. The review emphasizes user-centered design in AI-CDSS integration, addressing usability, trust, workflow, and ethical and legal considerations. It acknowledges prevailing obstacles and suggests strategies for successful AI-CDSS adoption, highlighting the need for workflow alignment and interdisciplinary collaboration. The review concludes by summarizing key findings, underscoring AI's transformative potential in CDSS, and advocating for continued research and innovation. It emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts to realize a future where AI-powered CDSS optimizes healthcare delivery and improves patient outcomes.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.362 · 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