ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Exploring Stakeholder Perceptions about Using Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Rare and Atypical Infections.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate critical care provider perspectives about diagnostic practices for rare and atypical infections and the potential for using artificial intelligence (AI) as a decision support system (DSS).
methodsWe conducted an anonymous web-based survey among critical care providers at Mayo Clinic Rochester between November 25, 2023, and January 15, 2024, to evaluate their experience with rare and atypical infection diagnostic processes and AI-based DSSs. We also assessed the perceived usefulness of AI-based DSSs, their potential impact on improving diagnostic practices for rare and atypical infections, and the perceived risks and benefits of their use.
resultsA total of 47/143 providers completed the survey. Thirty-eight out of 47 agreed that there was a delay in diagnosing rare and atypical infections. Among those who agreed, limited assessment of specific patient factors and failure to consider them were the most frequently cited important contributing factors (33/38). Thirty-eight out of 47 reported familiarity with the AI-based DSS applications available to critical care providers. Less than half (18/38) thought AI-based DSSs often provided valuable insights into patient care, but almost three-quarters (34/47) thought AI-based DDSs often provided valuable insight when specifically asked about their ability to improve the diagnosis of rare and atypical infections. All respondents rated reliability as important in enhancing the perceived utility of AI-based DSSs (47/47) and almost all rated interpretability and integration into the workflow as important (45/47). The primary concern about implementing an AI-based DSS in this context was alert fatigue (44/47).
conclusionMost critical care providers perceive that there are delays in diagnosing rare infections, indicating inadequate assessment and consideration of the diagnosis as the major contributors. Reliability, interpretability, workflow integration, and alert fatigue emerged as key factors impacting the usability of AI-based DSS. These findings will inform the development and implementation of an AI-based diagnostic algorithm to aid in identifying rare and atypical infections.
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.