Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33493130›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Patients' Preferences for Artificial Intelligence Applications Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in China: Discrete Choice Experiment.

Taoran Liu, Winghei Tsang, Fengqiu Huang, Oi Ying Lau, Yanhui Chen, Jie Sheng, Yiwei Guo, Babatunde Akinwunmi, Casper Jp Zhang, Wai-Kit Ming

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Taoran Liu *Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7806-1263
Winghei Tsang *Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4350-3559
Fengqiu HuangDepartment of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3170-6773
Oi Ying LauDepartment of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6393-9467
Yanhui ChenDepartment of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0826-1788
Jie ShengDepartment of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5912-8410
Yiwei GuoSchool of Finance and Business, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2499-0080
Babatunde AkinwunmiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8316-1552
Casper Jp ZhangSchool of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0003-1047-0287
Wai-Kit MingDepartment of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8846-7515
Jinan University · CNBrigham and Women's Hospital · USShanghai Normal University · CNUniversity of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMisdiagnosis, arbitrary charges, annoying queues, and clinic waiting times among others are long-standing phenomena in the medical industry across the world. These factors can contribute to patient anxiety about misdiagnosis by clinicians. However, with the increasing growth in use of big data in biomedical and health care communities, the performance of artificial intelligence (Al) techniques of diagnosis is improving and can help avoid medical practice errors, including under the current circumstance of COVID-19.

objectiveThis study aims to visualize and measure patients' heterogeneous preferences from various angles of AI diagnosis versus clinicians in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic in China. We also aim to illustrate the different decision-making factors of the latent class of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and prospects for the application of AI techniques in judgment and management during the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 and in the future.

methodsA DCE approach was the main analysis method applied in this paper. Attributes from different dimensions were hypothesized: diagnostic method, outpatient waiting time, diagnosis time, accuracy, follow-up after diagnosis, and diagnostic expense. After that, a questionnaire is formed. With collected data from the DCE questionnaire, we apply Sawtooth software to construct a generalized multinomial logit (GMNL) model, mixed logit model, and latent class model with the data sets. Moreover, we calculate the variables' coefficients, standard error, P value, and odds ratio (OR) and form a utility report to present the importance and weighted percentage of attributes.

resultsA total of 55.8% of the respondents (428 out of 767) opted for AI diagnosis regardless of the description of the clinicians. In the GMNL model, we found that people prefer the 100% accuracy level the most (OR 4.548, 95% CI 4.048-5.110, P<.001). For the latent class model, the most acceptable model consists of 3 latent classes of respondents. The attributes with the most substantial effects and highest percentage weights are the accuracy (39.29% in general) and expense of diagnosis (21.69% in general), especially the preferences for the diagnosis "accuracy" attribute, which is constant across classes. For class 1 and class 3, people prefer the AI + clinicians method (class 1: OR 1.247, 95% CI 1.036-1.463, P<.001; class 3: OR 1.958, 95% CI 1.769-2.167, P<.001). For class 2, people prefer the AI method (OR 1.546, 95% CI 0.883-2.707, P=.37). The OR of levels of attributes increases with the increase of accuracy across all classes.

conclusionsLatent class analysis was prominent and useful in quantifying preferences for attributes of diagnosis choice. People's preferences for the "accuracy" and "diagnostic expenses" attributes are palpable. AI will have a potential market. However, accuracy and diagnosis expenses need to be taken into consideration.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiagnosisPatient PreferencePhysiciansAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChinaChoice BehaviorCOVID-19Diagnostic Techniques and ProceduresFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansLatent Class Analysisappartificial intelligenceChinaCOVID-19diagnosisdiscrete choice experimenthuman clinicianslatent-class conditional logitmultinomial logit analysispatient preferencequestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID33493130
PMCPMC7903977
OpenAlexW3125182956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.