In Silico Evaluation of Algorithm-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrating algorithm-based clinical decision support (CDS) systems poses significant challenges in evaluating their actual clinical value. Such CDS systems are traditionally assessed via controlled but resource-intensive clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a review protocol for preimplementation in silico evaluation methods to enable broadened impact analysis under simulated environments before clinical trials. METHODS: We propose a scoping review protocol that follows an enhanced Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines to investigate the scope and research gaps in the in silico evaluation of algorithm-based CDS models-specifically CDS decision-making end points and objectives, evaluation metrics used, and simulation paradigms used to assess potential impacts. The databases searched are PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, IEEEXplore, Web of Science, and arXiv. A 2-stage screening process identified pertinent articles. The information extracted from articles was iteratively refined. The review will use thematic, trend, and descriptive analyses to meet scoping aims. RESULTS: We conducted an automated search of the databases above in May 2023, with most title and abstract screenings completed by November 2023 and full-text screening extended from December 2023 to May 2024. Concurrent charting and full-text analysis were carried out, with the final analysis and manuscript preparation set for completion in July 2024. Publication of the review results is targeted from July 2024 to February 2025. As of April 2024, a total of 21 articles have been selected following a 2-stage screening process; these will proceed to data extraction and analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We refined our data extraction strategy through a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach, planning to analyze results using thematic analyses to identify approaches to in silico evaluation. Anticipated findings aim to contribute to developing a unified in silico evaluation framework adaptable to various clinical workflows, detailing clinical decision-making characteristics, impact measures, and reusability of methods. The study's findings will be published and presented in forums combining artificial intelligence and machine learning, clinical decision-making, and health technology impact analysis. Ultimately, we aim to bridge the development-deployment gap through in silico evaluation-based potential impact assessments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63875.
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 | 0.184 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.018 |
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".