ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2024
Assessing Artificial Intelligence Solution Effectiveness: The Role of Pragmatic Trials.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the algorithm: why oncology nursing in Asia-Pacific needs evidence-based AI evaluation.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Available guidance for ethical challenges in learning health systems: an integrative literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in early heart failure detection: from algorithms to bedside integration.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Personalized AI for workplace health promotion: performance management and healthcare worker engagement through digital analytics.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Review
- Beyond black-box AI: Interpretable hybrid systems for dementia care.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and other digital solutions in health care has considerably altered the landscape of medical research and patient care. Rigorous evaluation in routine practice settings is fundamental to the ethical use of AI and consists of 3 stages of evaluations: technical performance, usability and acceptability, and health impact evaluation. Pragmatic trials often play a key role in the health impact evaluation. The current review introduces the concept of pragmatic trials, their role in AI evaluation, the challenges of conducting pragmatic trials, and strategies to mitigate the challenges. We also examined common designs used in pragmatic trials and highlighted examples of published or ongoing AI trials. As more health systems advance into learning health systems, where outcomes are continuously evaluated to refine processes and tools, pragmatic trials embedded into everyday practice, leveraging data and infrastructure from delivering health care, will be a critical part of the feedback cycle for learning and improvement.
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.