ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
A use case of ChatGPT: summary of an expert panel discussion on electronic health records and implementation science.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in implementation research: a scoping review of applications and recommendations.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing healthcare, but less is known about how it may facilitate methodological innovations in research settings. In this manuscript, we describe a novel use of AI in summarizing and reporting qualitative data generated from an expert panel discussion about the role of electronic health records (EHRs) in implementation science. Materials and methods: 15 implementation scientists participated in an hour-long expert panel discussion addressing how EHRs can support implementation strategies, measure implementation outcomes, and influence implementation science. Notes from the discussion were synthesized by ChatGPT (a large language model-LLM) to generate a manuscript summarizing the discussion, which was later revised by participants. We also surveyed participants on their experience with the process. Results: Panelists identified implementation strategies and outcome measures that can be readily supported by EHRs and noted that implementation science will need to evolve to assess future EHR advancements. The ChatGPT-generated summary of the panel discussion was generally regarded as an efficient means to offer a high-level overview of the discussion, although participants felt it lacked nuance and context. Extensive editing was required to contextualize the LLM-generated text and situate it in relevant literature. Discussion and conclusions: Our qualitative findings highlight the central role EHRs can play in supporting implementation science, which may require additional informatics and implementation expertise and a different way to think about the combined fields. Our experience using ChatGPT as a research methods innovation was mixed and underscores the need for close supervision and attentive human involvement.
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.