Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34844594›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

How can we discover the most valuable types of big data and artificial intelligence-based solutions? A methodology for the efficient development of the underlying analytics that improve care.

Lytske Bakker, Jos Aarts, Carin Uyl-de Groot, Ken Redekop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Lytske BakkerErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. bakker@eshpm.eur.nl.
Jos AartsErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carin Uyl-de GrootErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ken RedekopErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMuch has been invested in big data and artificial intelligence-based solutions for healthcare. However, few applications have been implemented in clinical practice. Early economic evaluations can help to improve decision-making by developers of analytics underlying these solutions aiming to increase the likelihood of successful implementation, but recommendations about their use are lacking. The aim of this study was to develop and apply a framework that positions best practice methods for economic evaluations alongside development of analytics, thereby enabling developers to identify barriers to success and to select analytics worth further investments.

methodsThe framework was developed using literature, recommendations for economic evaluations and by applying the framework to use cases (chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), intensive care, diabetes). First, the feasibility of developing clinically relevant analytics was assessed and critical barriers to successful development and implementation identified. Economic evaluations were then used to determine critical thresholds and guide investment decisions.

resultsWhen using the framework to assist decision-making of developers of analytics, continuing development was not always feasible or worthwhile. Developing analytics for progressive CLL and diabetes was clinically relevant but not feasible with the data available. Alternatively, developing analytics for newly diagnosed CLL patients was feasible but continuing development was not considered worthwhile because the high drug costs made it economically unattractive for potential users. Alternatively, in the intensive care unit, analytics reduced mortality and per-patient costs when used to identify infections (- 0.5%, - €886) and to improve patient-ventilator interaction (- 3%, - €264). Both analytics have the potential to save money but the potential benefits of analytics that identify infections strongly depend on infection rate; a higher rate implies greater cost-savings.

conclusionsWe present a framework that stimulates efficiency of development of analytics for big data and artificial intelligence-based solutions by selecting those applications of analytics for which development is feasible and worthwhile. For these applications, results from early economic evaluations can be used to guide investment decisions and identify critical requirements.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBig DataCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansAnalyticsArtificial intelligenceBig dataChronic lymphocytic leukaemiaCost–benefit analysisCritical care

Identifiers

PMID34844594
PMCPMC8628451

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.