ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Capturing Requirements for a Data Annotation Tool for Intensive Care: Experimental User-Centered Design Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time-Stamped Annotations in High-Frequency Physiological Data: Evaluating an Approach for Assessing Annotation Plausibility in the CENTER-TBI Dataset.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Developing a Scalable Annotation Method for Large Datasets That Enhances Alarms With Actionability Data to Increase Informativeness: Mixed Methods Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing use of computational methods in health care provides opportunities to address previously unsolvable problems. Machine learning techniques applied to routinely collected data can enhance clinical tools and improve patient outcomes, but their effective deployment comes with significant challenges. While some tasks can be addressed by training machine learning models directly on the collected data, more complex problems require additional input in the form of data annotations. Data annotation is a complex and time-consuming problem that requires domain expertise and frequently, technical proficiency. With clinicians' time being an extremely limited resource, existing tools fail to provide an effective workflow for deployment in health care.
objectiveThis paper investigates the approach of intensive care unit staff to the task of data annotation. Specifically, it aims to (1) understand how clinicians approach data annotation and (2) capture the requirements for a digital annotation tool for the health care setting.
methodsWe conducted an experimental activity involving annotation of the printed excerpts of real time-series admission data with 7 intensive care unit clinicians. Each participant annotated an identical set of admissions with the periods of weaning from mechanical ventilation during a single 45-minute workshop. Participants were observed during task completion and their actions were analyzed within Norman's Interaction Cycle model to identify the software requirements.
resultsClinicians followed a cyclic process of investigation, annotation, data reevaluation, and label refinement. Variety of techniques were used to investigate data and create annotations. We identified 11 requirements for the digital tool across 4 domains: annotation of individual admissions (n=5), semiautomated annotation (n=3), operational constraints (n=2), and use of labels in machine learning (n=1).
conclusionsEffective data annotation in a clinical setting relies on flexibility in analysis and label creation and workflow continuity across multiple admissions. There is a need to ensure a seamless transition between data investigation, annotation, and refinement of the labels.
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.