ArticleJAMA network open2023
Organizational Factors in Clinical Data Sharing for Artificial Intelligence in Health Care.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alignment of Policy, Practice, and Patient Safety for Trustworthy AI in Radiology.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Automated assessment of Knosp grade from pituitary adenoma MRI: Experimental comparison of a rule-based and a machine learning-based approach.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- The impact of leadership on AI deployment study outcomes in healthcare: an integrative analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Building health systems capable of leveraging AI: applying Paul Farmer's 5S framework for equitable global health.BMC global and public health · 2025Review
- Traumatic Brain Injury and Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Neurorehabilitation-A Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Implementation report on pioneering federated data access for the German National Emergency Department Data Registry.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- When Healthcare Professionals Use AI: Exploring Work Well-Being Through Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Job Complexity.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for enhanced public health surveillance: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Enhancing neuro-oncology care through equity-driven applications of artificial intelligence.Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Toward Improved Radiologic Diagnostics: Investigating the Utility and Limitations of GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 with Quiz Cases.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Multiple-Cancer Early Detection via Serum Biomarkers: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Limited sharing of data sets that accurately represent disease and patient diversity limits the generalizability of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in health care. Objective: To explore the factors associated with organizational motivation to share health data for AI development. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study investigated organizational readiness for sharing health data across the academic, governmental, nonprofit, and private sectors. Using a multiple case studies approach, 27 semistructured interviews were conducted with leaders in data-sharing roles from August 29, 2022, to January 9, 2023. The interviews were conducted in the English language using a video conferencing platform. Using a purposive and nonprobabilistic sampling strategy, 78 individuals across 52 unique organizations were identified. Of these, 35 participants were enrolled. Participant recruitment concluded after 27 interviews, as theoretical saturation was reached and no additional themes emerged. Main Outcome and Measure: Concepts defining organizational readiness for data sharing and the association between data-sharing factors and organizational behavior were mapped through iterative qualitative analysis to establish a framework defining organizational readiness for sharing clinical data for AI development. Results: Interviews included 27 leaders from 18 organizations (academia: 10, government: 7, nonprofit: 8, and private: 2). Organizational readiness for data sharing centered around 2 main constructs: motivation and capabilities. Motivation related to the alignment of an organization's values with data-sharing priorities and was associated with its engagement in data-sharing efforts. However, organizational motivation could be modulated by extrinsic incentives for financial or reputational gains. Organizational capabilities comprised infrastructure, people, expertise, and access to data. Cross-sector collaboration was a key strategy to mitigate barriers to access health data. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study identified sector-specific factors that may affect the data-sharing behaviors of health organizations. External incentives may bolster cross-sector collaborations by helping overcome barriers to accessing health data for AI development. The findings suggest that tailored incentives may boost organizational motivation and facilitate sustainable flow of health data for AI development.
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.