Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37749239›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2023

Collaborative Intelligence to catalyze the digital transformation of healthcare.

Ami B Bhatt, Jennifer Bae

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ami B BhattChief Innovation Officer, American College of Cardiology, Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School, Washington, USA. abhatt@acc.org.
Jennifer BaeExecutive Director of Global Innovation, American College of Cardiology, Washington, USA.
American College of Cardiology · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaborative intelligence reflects the promise and limits of leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in clinical care. It involves the use of advanced analytics and computing power with an understanding that humans bear responsibility for the accuracy, completeness and any inherent bias found in the training data. Clinicians benefit from using this technology to address increased complexity and information overload, support continuous care and optimized resource allocation, and to enact efforts to eradicate disparities in health care access and quality. This requires active clinician engagement with the technology, a general understanding of how the machine produced its insight, the limitations of the algorithms, and the need to screen datasets for bias. Importantly, by interacting, the clinician and the analytics will create trust based on the clinician's critical thinking skills leveraged to discern value of machine outputs within clinical context. Utilization of collaborative intelligence should be staged with the level of understanding and evidence. It is particularly well suited to low-complexity non-urgent care and to identifying individuals at rising risk within a population. Clinician involvement in algorithm development and the amassing of evidence to support safety and efficacy will propel adoption. Utilization of collaborative intelligence represents the natural progression of health care innovation, and if thoughtfully constructed and equitably deployed, holds the promise to decrease clinician burden and improve access to care.

Identifiers

PMID37749239
PMCPMC10520019
OpenAlexW4387024713

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.