Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38553625›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2024

Foundation metrics for evaluating effectiveness of healthcare conversations powered by generative AI.

Mahyar Abbasian, Elahe Khatibi, Iman Azimi, David Oniani, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Alexander Thieme, Ram Sriram, Zhongqi Yang, Yanshan Wang, Bryant Lin and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Validating LLM judges for automated oversight of patient communication.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

14 authors.

Mahyar Abbasian *University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. abbasiam@uci.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-8448-3158
Elahe Khatibi *University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. ekhatibi@uci.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5326-8172
Iman AzimiUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5003-299X
David OnianiHealthUnity, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9221-3059
Zahra Shakeri Hossein AbadHealthUnity, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Alexander ThiemeStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4564-3347
Ram SriramNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Zhongqi YangUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4196-0652
Yanshan WangHealthUnity, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4433-7839
Bryant LinHealthUnity, Palo Alto, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7284-0522
Olivier GevaertStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9965-5466
Li-Jia LiHealthUnity, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Ramesh JainUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Amir M RahmaniUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence is set to revolutionize healthcare delivery by transforming traditional patient care into a more personalized, efficient, and proactive process. Chatbots, serving as interactive conversational models, will probably drive this patient-centered transformation in healthcare. Through the provision of various services, including diagnosis, personalized lifestyle recommendations, dynamic scheduling of follow-ups, and mental health support, the objective is to substantially augment patient health outcomes, all the while mitigating the workload burden on healthcare providers. The life-critical nature of healthcare applications necessitates establishing a unified and comprehensive set of evaluation metrics for conversational models. Existing evaluation metrics proposed for various generic large language models (LLMs) demonstrate a lack of comprehension regarding medical and health concepts and their significance in promoting patients' well-being. Moreover, these metrics neglect pivotal user-centered aspects, including trust-building, ethics, personalization, empathy, user comprehension, and emotional support. The purpose of this paper is to explore state-of-the-art LLM-based evaluation metrics that are specifically applicable to the assessment of interactive conversational models in healthcare. Subsequently, we present a comprehensive set of evaluation metrics designed to thoroughly assess the performance of healthcare chatbots from an end-user perspective. These metrics encompass an evaluation of language processing abilities, impact on real-world clinical tasks, and effectiveness in user-interactive conversations. Finally, we engage in a discussion concerning the challenges associated with defining and implementing these metrics, with particular emphasis on confounding factors such as the target audience, evaluation methods, and prompt techniques involved in the evaluation process.

Identifiers

PMID38553625
PMCPMC10980701

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.