ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
The Potential of Using Generative AI/NLP to Identify and Analyse Critical Incidents in a Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS): A Feasibility Case-Control Study.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo enhance patient safety in healthcare, it is crucial to address the underreporting of issues in Critical Incident Reporting Systems (CIRSs). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of generative Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing (AI/NLP) in reviewing CIRS cases by comparing its performance with human reviewers and categorising these cases into relevant topics.
methodsA case-control feasibility study was conducted using CIRS cases from the German CIRS-Anaesthesiology subsystem. Each case was reviewed by a human expert and by an AI/NLP model (ChatGPT-3.5). Two CIRS experts blindly assessed these reviews, rating them on linguistic quality, recognisable expertise, logical derivability, and overall quality using six-point Likert scales.
resultsOn average, the CIRS experts correctly classified 80% of human CIRS reviews as created by a human and misclassified 45.8% of AI reviews as written by a human. Ratings on a scale of 1 (very good) to 6 (failed) revealed a comparable performance between human- and AI-generated reviews across the dimensions of linguistic expression (
conclusionsThis feasibility study demonstrates the potential of generative AI/NLP in analysing and categorising cases from the CIRS. This could have implications for improving incident reporting in healthcare. Therefore, additional research is required to verify and expand upon these discoveries.
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.