Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39909417›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

AI for IMPACTS Framework for Evaluating the Long-Term Real-World Impacts of AI-Powered Clinician Tools: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Christine Jacob, Noé Brasier, Emanuele Laurenzi, Sabina Heuss, Stavroula-Georgia Mougiakakou, Arzu Cöltekin, Marc K Peter

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Christine JacobFHNW, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8817-0148
Noé BrasierInstitute of Translational Medicine, Department of Health Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0186-0865
Emanuele LaurenziFHNW, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9142-7488
Sabina Heuss *FHNW, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1171-918X
Stavroula-Georgia Mougiakakou *ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6355-9982
Arzu Cöltekin *FHNW, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3178-3509
Marc K Peter *FHNW, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Windisch, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2897-0389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize health care by enhancing both clinical outcomes and operational efficiency. However, its clinical adoption has been slower than anticipated, largely due to the absence of comprehensive evaluation frameworks. Existing frameworks remain insufficient and tend to emphasize technical metrics such as accuracy and validation, while overlooking critical real-world factors such as clinical impact, integration, and economic sustainability. This narrow focus prevents AI tools from being effectively implemented, limiting their broader impact and long-term viability in clinical practice.

objectiveThis study aimed to create a framework for assessing AI in health care, extending beyond technical metrics to incorporate social and organizational dimensions. The framework was developed by systematically reviewing, analyzing, and synthesizing the evaluation criteria necessary for successful implementation, focusing on the long-term real-world impact of AI in clinical practice.

methodsA search was performed in July 2024 across the PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore databases to identify relevant studies published in English between January 2019 and mid-July 2024, yielding 3528 results, among which 44 studies met the inclusion criteria. The systematic review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Data were analyzed using NVivo through thematic analysis and narrative synthesis to identify key emergent themes in the studies.

resultsBy synthesizing the included studies, we developed a framework that goes beyond the traditional focus on technical metrics or study-level methodologies. It integrates clinical context and real-world implementation factors, offering a more comprehensive approach to evaluating AI tools. With our focus on assessing the long-term real-world impact of AI technologies in health care, we named the framework AI for IMPACTS. The criteria are organized into seven key clusters, each corresponding to a letter in the acronym: (1) I-integration, interoperability, and workflow; (2) M-monitoring, governance, and accountability; (3) P-performance and quality metrics; (4) A-acceptability, trust, and training; (5) C-cost and economic evaluation; (6) T-technological safety and transparency; and (7) S-scalability and impact. These are further broken down into 28 specific subcriteria.

conclusionsThe AI for IMPACTS framework offers a holistic approach to evaluate the long-term real-world impact of AI tools in the heterogeneous and challenging health care context and lays the groundwork for further validation through expert consensus and testing of the framework in real-world health care settings. It is important to emphasize that multidisciplinary expertise is essential for assessment, yet many assessors lack the necessary training. In addition, traditional evaluation methods struggle to keep pace with AI's rapid development. To ensure successful AI integration, flexible, fast-tracked assessment processes and proper assessor training are needed to maintain rigorous standards while adapting to AI's dynamic evolution.

trial registrationreviewregistry1859; https://tinyurl.com/ysn2d7sh.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareHumansadoptionartificial intelligenceassessmentclinical practiceclinicianefficiencyeHealthhealth technology assessmentimplementation

Identifiers

PMID39909417
PMCPMC11840377

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.