Artificial Intelligence–Driven Serious Games in Health Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI)–driven serious games have been used in health care to offer a customizable and immersive experience. Summarizing the features of the current AI-driven serious games is very important to explore how they have been developed and used and their current state to plan on how to leverage them in the current and future health care needs. Objective This study aimed to explore the features of AI-driven serious games in health care as reported by previous research. Methods We conducted a scoping review to achieve the abovementioned objective. The most popular databases in the information technology and health fields (ie, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar) were searched using keywords related to serious games and AI. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection process. Three reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. A narrative approach was used for data synthesis. Results The search process returned 1470 records. Of these 1470 records, 46 (31.29%) met all eligibility criteria. A total of 64 different serious games were found in the included studies. Motor impairment was the most common health condition targeted by these serious games. Serious games were used for rehabilitation in most of the studies. The most common genres of serious games were role-playing games, puzzle games, and platform games. Unity was the most prominent game engine used to develop serious games. PCs were the most common platform used to play serious games. The most common algorithm used in the included studies was support vector machine. The most common purposes of AI were the detection of disease and the evaluation of user performance. The size of the data set ranged from 36 to 795,600. The most common validation techniques used in the included studies were k-fold cross-validation and training-test split validation. Accuracy was the most commonly used metric for evaluating the performance of AI models. Conclusions The last decade witnessed an increase in the development of AI-driven serious games for health care purposes, targeting various health conditions, and leveraging multiple AI algorithms; this rising trend is expected to continue for years to come. Although the evidence uncovered in this study shows promising applications of AI-driven serious games, larger and more rigorous, diverse, and robust studies may be needed to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of AI-driven serious games in different populations with different health conditions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".