Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310821›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health research2022

Predicting attitudes towards screening for neurodegenerative diseases using OCT and artificial intelligence: Findings from a literature review.

Beth Ab Nichol, Anya C Hurlbert, Jenny Ca Read

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Beth Ab NicholDepartment of Social Work, Education, and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7642-1448
Anya C HurlbertBiosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9879-5758
Jenny Ca ReadBiosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9029-5185

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning raise the possibility of screening and early diagnosis for neurodegenerative diseases, using 3D scans of the retina. The eventual value of such screening will depend not only on scientific metrics such as specificity and sensitivity but, critically, also on public attitudes and uptake. Differential screening rates for various screening programmes in England indicate that multiple factors influence uptake. In this narrative literature review, some of these potential factors are explored in relation to predicting uptake of an early screening tool for neurodegenerative diseases using AI. These include: awareness of the disease, perceived risk, social influence, the use of AI, previous screening experience, socioeconomic status, health literacy, uncontrollable mortality risk, and demographic factors. The review finds the strongest and most consistent predictors to be ethnicity, social influence, the use of AI, and previous screening experience. Furthermore, it is likely that factors also interact to predict the uptake of such a tool. However, further experimental work is needed both to validate these predictions and explore interactions between the significant predictors.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencehealth psychologyHealth screeningneurodegenerative diseasesParkinson’s screeningpredictors of screeningpublic attitudespublic health

Identifiers

PMID36310821
PMCPMC9597051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.