Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36641467›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2023

Machine learning in general practice: scoping review of administrative task support and automation.

Natasha Lee Sørensen, Brian Bemman, Martin Bach Jensen, Thomas B Moeslund, Janus Laust Thomsen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. AI in primary care - a general practitioner's bucket list.The European journal of general practice · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Natasha Lee SørensenCenter for General Practice at, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0481-5560
Brian BemmanCenter for General Practice at, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. bb@create.aau.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-7189-7896
Martin Bach JensenCenter for General Practice at, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2162-7390
Thomas B MoeslundDept. of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7584-5209
Janus Laust ThomsenCenter for General Practice at, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0745-6815

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support general practice in the early detection of disease and treatment recommendations. However, AI systems aimed at alleviating time-consuming administrative tasks currently appear limited. This scoping review thus aims to summarize the research that has been carried out in methods of machine learning applied to the support and automation of administrative tasks in general practice.

methodsDatabases covering the fields of health care and engineering sciences (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL with full text, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore) were searched. Screening for eligible studies was completed using Covidence, and data was extracted along nine research-based attributes concerning general practice, administrative tasks, and machine learning. The search and screening processes were completed during the period of April to June 2022.

results1439 records were identified and 1158 were screened for eligibility criteria. A total of 12 studies were included. The extracted attributes indicate that most studies concern various scheduling tasks using supervised machine learning methods with relatively low general practitioner (GP) involvement. Importantly, four studies employed the latest available machine learning methods and the data used frequently varied in terms of setting, type, and availability.

conclusionThe limited field of research developing in the application of machine learning to administrative tasks in general practice indicates that there is a great need and high potential for such methods. However, there is currently a lack of research likely due to the unavailability of open-source data and a prioritization of diagnostic-based tasks. Future research would benefit from open-source data, cutting-edge methods of machine learning, and clearly stated GP involvement, so that improved and replicable scientific research can be done.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceGeneral PracticeAutomationFamily PracticeMachine LearningArtificial intelligenceGeneral practiceHealth Services AdministrationMachine LearningOrganization and AdministrationPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID36641467
PMCPMC9840326

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.