Observational studyScientific reports2024
Constructing and implementing a performance evaluation indicator set for artificial intelligence decision support systems in pediatric outpatient clinics: an observational study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence assisted telemedicine, clinical decision support for anesthesia and critical care in intensive care units: a scoping review.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Pediatrics 4.0: the Transformative Impacts of the Latest Industrial Revolution on Pediatrics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) decision support systems in pediatric healthcare have a complex application background. As an AI decision support system (AI-DSS) can be costly, once applied, it is crucial to focus on its performance, interpret its success, and then monitor and update it to ensure ongoing success consistently. Therefore, a set of evaluation indicators was explicitly developed for AI-DSS in pediatric healthcare, enabling continuous and systematic performance monitoring. The study unfolded in two stages. The first stage encompassed establishing the evaluation indicator set through a literature review, a focus group interview, and expert consultation using the Delphi method. In the second stage, weight analysis was conducted. Subjective weights were calculated based on expert opinions through analytic hierarchy process, while objective weights were determined using the entropy weight method. Subsequently, subject and object weights were synthesized to form the combined weight. In the two rounds of expert consultation, the authority coefficients were 0.834 and 0.846, Kendall's coordination coefficient was 0.135 in Round 1 and 0.312 in Round 2. The final evaluation indicator set has three first-class indicators, fifteen second-class indicators, and forty-seven third-class indicators. Indicator I-1(Organizational performance) carries the highest weight, followed by Indicator I-2(Societal performance) and Indicator I-3(User experience performance) in the objective and combined weights. Conversely, 'Societal performance' holds the most weight among the subjective weights, followed by 'Organizational performance' and 'User experience performance'. In this study, a comprehensive and specialized set of evaluation indicators for the AI-DSS in the pediatric outpatient clinic was established, and then implemented. Continuous evaluation still requires long-term data collection to optimize the weight proportions of the established indicators.
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.