Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36516134›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Physician preference for receiving machine learning predictive results: A cross-sectional multicentric study.

Roberta Moreira Wichmann, Thales Pardini Fagundes, Tiago Almeida de Oliveira, André Filipe de Moraes Batista, Alexandre Dias Porto Chiavegatto Filho

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Roberta Moreira WichmannSchool of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4951-9327
Thales Pardini FagundesClinics Hospital of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tiago Almeida de OliveiraState University of Paraiba, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil.
André Filipe de Moraes BatistaSchool of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alexandre Dias Porto Chiavegatto FilhoSchool of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19PhysiciansArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID36516134
PMCPMC9749966

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.