Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39568412›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2024

Health technology assessment framework for artificial intelligence-based technologies.

Rossella Di Bidino, Signe Daugbjerg, Sara C Papavero, Ira H Haraldsen, Americo Cicchetti, Dario Sacchini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Integrating ethical analysis in health technology assessment: opportunities and challenges.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors.

Rossella Di BidinoGraduate School of Health Economics and Management, Universita Cattolica del SacroCuore (ALTEMS), 00168Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-856X
Signe DaugbjergGraduate School of Health Economics and Management, Universita Cattolica del SacroCuore (ALTEMS), 00168Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0770-5615
Sara C PapaveroGraduate School of Health Economics and Management, Universita Cattolica del SacroCuore (ALTEMS), 00168Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5976-2363
Ira H HaraldsenDepartment of Neurology, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6908-5423
Americo CicchettiDirectorate-General for Health Programming, Ministry of Health, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4633-9195
Dario SacchiniFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1581-3018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI)-based health technologies (AIHTs) have already been applied in clinical practice. However, there is currently no standardized framework for evaluating them based on the principles of health technology assessment (HTA).

methodsA two-round Delphi survey was distributed to a panel of experts to determine the significance of incorporating topics outlined in the EUnetHTA Core Model and twenty additional ones identified through literature reviews. Each panelist assigned scores to each topic. Topics were categorized as critical to include (scores 7-9), important but not critical (scores 4-6), and not important (scores 1-3). A 70 percent cutoff was used to determine high agreement.

resultsOur panel of 46 experts indicated that 48 out of the 65 proposed topics are critical and should be included in an HTA framework for AIHTs. Among the ten most crucial topics, the following emerged: accuracy of the AI model (97.78 percent), patient safety (95.65 percent), benefit-harm balance evaluated from an ethical standpoint (95.56 percent), and bias in data (91.30 percent). Importantly, our findings highlight that the Core Model is insufficient in capturing all relevant topics for AI-based technologies, as 14 out of the additional 20 topics were identified as crucial.

conclusionIt is imperative to determine the level of agreement on AI-relevant HTA topics to establish a robust assessment framework. This framework will play a foundational role in evaluating AI tools for the early diagnosis of dementia, which is the focus of the European project AI-Mind currently being developed.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelphi TechniqueTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansPatient SafetyAI-HTA frameworkAI-Mind Studyartificial intelligencehealth technology assessmentvalue assessment

Identifiers

PMID39568412
PMCPMC11703629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.