ArticlePloS one2022
Physician preference for receiving machine learning predictive results: A cross-sectional multicentric study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are transforming several areas of the digital world and are increasingly being applied in healthcare. Mobile apps based on predictive machine learning models have the potential to improve health outcomes, but there is still no consensus on how to inform doctors about their results. The aim of this study was to investigate how healthcare professionals prefer to receive predictions generated by machine learning algorithms. A systematic search in MEDLINE, via PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science was first performed. We developed a mobile app, RandomIA, to predict the occurrence of clinical outcomes, initially for COVID-19 and later expected to be expanded to other diseases. A questionnaire called System Usability Scale (SUS) was selected to assess the usability of the mobile app. A total of 69 doctors from the five regions of Brazil tested RandomIA and evaluated three different ways to visualize the predictions. For prognostic outcomes (mechanical ventilation, admission to an intensive care unit, and death), most doctors (62.9%) preferred a more complex visualization, represented by a bar graph with three categories (low, medium, and high probability) and a probability density graph for each outcome. For the diagnostic prediction of COVID-19, there was also a majority preference (65.4%) for the same option. Our results indicate that doctors could be more inclined to prefer receiving detailed results from predictive machine learning algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.