Checklist Approach to Developing and Implementing AI in Clinical Settings: Instrument Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care settings demands a nuanced approach that considers both technical performance and sociotechnical factors. Objective: This study aimed to develop a checklist that addresses the sociotechnical aspects of AI deployment in health care and provides a structured, holistic guide for teams involved in the life cycle of AI systems. Methods: A literature synthesis identified 20 relevant studies, forming the foundation for the Clinical AI Sociotechnical Framework checklist. A modified Delphi study was then conducted with 35 global health care professionals. Participants assessed the checklist's relevance across 4 stages: "Planning," "Design," "Development," and "Proposed Implementation." A consensus threshold of 80% was established for each item. IQRs and Cronbach α were calculated to assess agreement and reliability. Results: The initial checklist had 45 questions. Following participant feedback, the checklist was refined to 34 items, and a final round saw 100% consensus on all items (mean score >0.8, IQR 0). Based on the outcome of the Delphi study, a final checklist was outlined, with 1 more question added to make 35 questions in total. Conclusions: The Clinical AI Sociotechnical Framework checklist provides a comprehensive, structured approach to developing and implementing AI in clinical settings, addressing technical and social factors critical for adoption and success. This checklist is a practical tool that aligns AI development with real-world clinical needs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes and integrate smoothly into health care workflows.
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 | 0.091 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".