Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38528969›Full record

ArticleDigital health

The robot butler: How and why should we study predictive algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare?

Iben Mundbjerg Gjødsbøl, Anna Kirstine Ringgaard, Peter Christoffer Holm, Søren Brunak, Henning Bundgaard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Iben Mundbjerg GjødsbølDepartment of Public Health, Centre for Medical Science and Technology Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3938-5211
Anna Kirstine RinggaardDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter Christoffer HolmNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren BrunakNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henning BundgaardDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms are heralded as significant solutions to the widening gap between the rising healthcare needs of ageing and multi-morbid populations and the scarcity of resources to provide such care. Objective: This article investigates how the PMHnet algorithm - an AI prognostication tool developed in Denmark to predict the one-year all-cause mortality risk for patients hospitalized with ischemic heart disease - was presented to cardiologists working in the hospital setting, and how they responded to this novel decision-support tool. Methods: Empirically, we draw upon ethnographic fieldwork in the Danish-led international research project, PM Heart, which since 2019 has developed the PMHnet algorithm and implemented the software into the electronic health record system in hospitals in Eastern Denmark (the Capital Region and Region Zealand). Results: Paying careful attention to the hopes and concerns of cardiologists who will have to embrace and adapt to algorithmic tools in their everyday work of diagnosing and treating patients, we identify three analytical themes meriting attention when AI is implemented in healthcare: 1) the re-negotiation of agency and autonomy in human-algorithm relations, 2) accountability in algorithmic prognostication and 3) the complex relationship between association and causation actualized by predictive algorithms. From these analytical themes, we elicit methodological questions to guide future ethnographic explorations of how AI and advanced algorithms are put to use in the healthcare system, with what implications, and for whom. Conclusion: We conclude that local, qualitative investigations of how algorithms are used, embraced and contested in everyday clinical practice are needed in order to understand their implications - good and bad, intended and unintended - for clinicians, patients and healthcare provision.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencecardiovascular diseaseclinical careethnographymethodological guidancepersonalized medicineprecision medicinepredictive algorithmsqualitative (studies)

Identifiers

PMID38528969
PMCPMC10962026
OpenAlexW4393153007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.