Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37093631›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2023

What Works Where and How for Uptake and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology: Review of Theories for a Realist Evaluation.

Henry King, Judy Wright, Darren Treanor, Bethany Williams, Rebecca Randell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Henry KingFaculty of Medicine & Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4267-6597
Judy WrightFaculty of Medicine & Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5239-0173
Darren TreanorFaculty of Medicine & Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4579-484X
Bethany WilliamsLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6641-5503
Rebecca RandellFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5856-4912

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology to increase accuracy and efficiency. To date, studies of clinicians' perceptions of AI have found only moderate acceptability, suggesting the need for further research regarding how to integrate it into clinical practice.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to determine contextual factors that may support or constrain the uptake of AI in pathology.

methodsTo go beyond a simple listing of barriers and facilitators, we drew on the approach of realist evaluation and undertook a review of the literature to elicit stakeholders' theories of how, for whom, and in what circumstances AI can provide benefit in pathology. Searches were designed by an information specialist and peer-reviewed by a second information specialist. Searches were run on the arXiv.org repository, MEDLINE, and the Health Management Information Consortium, with additional searches undertaken on a range of websites to identify gray literature. In line with a realist approach, we also made use of relevant theory. Included documents were indexed in NVivo 12, using codes to capture different contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that could affect the introduction of AI in pathology. Coded data were used to produce narrative summaries of each of the identified contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes, which were then translated into theories in the form of context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

resultsA total of 101 relevant documents were identified. Our analysis indicates that the benefits that can be achieved will vary according to the size and nature of the pathology department's workload and the extent to which pathologists work collaboratively; the major perceived benefit for specialist centers is in reducing workload. For uptake of AI, pathologists' trust is essential. Existing theories suggest that if pathologists are able to "make sense" of AI, engage in the adoption process, receive support in adapting their work processes, and can identify potential benefits to its introduction, it is more likely to be accepted.

conclusionsFor uptake of AI in pathology, for all but the most simple quantitative tasks, measures will be required that either increase confidence in the system or provide users with an understanding of the performance of the system. For specialist centers, efforts should focus on reducing workload rather than increasing accuracy. Designers also need to give careful thought to usability and how AI is integrated into pathologists' workflow.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNarrationHumansMachine LearningPathologyAIartificial intelligencehistopathologyimplementationmachine learningpathologyreview

Identifiers

PMID37093631
PMCPMC10167589

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.