Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39281326›Full record

ReviewFuture healthcare journal2024

Quality of interaction between clinicians and artificial intelligence systems. A systematic review.

Argyrios Perivolaris, Chris Adams-McGavin, Yasmine Madan, Teruko Kishibe, Tony Antoniou, Muhammad Mamdani, James J Jung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future healthcare journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Artificial intelligence: friend or foe?Future healthcare journal · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Argyrios PerivolarisInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada.
Chris Adams-McGavinDepartment of Surgery, Temetry Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada.
Yasmine MadanDepartment of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Canada.
Teruko KishibeMISt, Library Services, Unity Health Toronto, Canada.
Tony AntoniouDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Canada.
Muhammad MamdaniSt. Michaels Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Canada.
James J JungInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve healthcare quality when thoughtfully integrated into clinical practice. Current evaluations of AI solutions tend to focus solely on model performance. There is a critical knowledge gap in the assessment of AI-clinician interactions. We systematically reviewed existing literature to identify interaction traits that can be used to assess the quality of AI-clinician interactions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published studies to June 2022 that reported elements of interactions that impacted the relationship between clinicians and AI-enabled clinical decision support systems. Due to study heterogeneity, we conducted a narrative synthesis of the different interaction traits identified from this review. Two study authors categorised the AI-clinician interaction traits based on their shared constructs independently. After the independent categorisation, both authors engaged in a discussion to finalise the categories. Results: From 34 included studies, we identified 210 interaction traits. The most common interaction traits included usefulness, ease of use, trust, satisfaction, willingness to use and usability. After removing duplicate or redundant traits, 90 unique interaction traits were identified. Unique interaction traits were then classified into seven categories: usability and user experience, system performance, clinician trust and acceptance, impact on patient care, communication, ethical and professional concerns, and clinician engagement and workflow. Discussion: We identified seven categories of interaction traits between clinicians and AI systems. The proposed categories may serve as a foundation for a framework assessing the quality of AI-clinician interactions.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCliniciansInteractionInterviewsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39281326
PMCPMC11399614

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.