Tracking the Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Implementation Science: Protocol for a Living Scoping Review of Applications, Evaluation Approaches and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p>Background Artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant opportunities to improve the field of implementation science by supporting key activities such as evidence synthesis, contextual analysis, and decision-making to promote the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based practices. This living scoping review aims to: (1) map applications of AI in implementation research and practice; (2) identify evaluation approaches, reported outcomes, and potential risks; and (3) synthesize reported research gaps and opportunities for advancing the use of AI in implementation science. Methods This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the Cochrane guidance for living systematic reviews. A living scoping review is warranted to keep up with the rapid changes in AI and its growing use in implementation science. We will include empirical studies, systematic reviews, grey literature, and policy documents that describe or evaluate applications of AI to support implementation science across the steps of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) Model. AI methods and models of interest include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, large language models, and related technologies and approaches. A search strategy will be applied to bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science), relevant journals, conference proceedings, and preprint servers. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract data on AI characteristics, specific implementation task according to the KTA Model, evaluation methods, outcome domains, risks, and research gaps. Extracted data will be analyzed descriptively and synthesized narratively using a mapping approach aligned with the KTA Model. Discussion This living review will consolidate the evidence base on how AI is applied across the spectrum of implementation science. It will inform researchers, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to harness AI to improve the adoption, scale-up, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions, while identifying areas for methodological advancement and risk mitigation. Review registration Open Science Framework, May 2025: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2Q5DV</ns3:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.095 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".