ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Think FAST: a novel framework to evaluate fidelity, accuracy, safety, and tone in conversational AI health coach dialogues.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavior Change Content and Implementation of Large Language Model-Driven Conversational Agents in Cardiometabolic Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Constructing and applying a multi-turn psychological support dialogue corpus based on the Helping Skills Chain-of-Thought.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Accelerating Digital Mental Health: The Society of Digital Psychiatry's Three-Pronged Road Map for Education, Digital Navigators, and AI.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Mindbench.ai: an actionable platform to evaluate the profile and performance of large language models in a mental healthcare context.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developments in Machine Learning based Conversational and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) have created opportunities for sophisticated Conversational Agents to augment elements of healthcare. While not a replacement for professional care, AI offers opportunities for scalability, cost effectiveness, and automation of many aspects of patient care. However, to realize these opportunities and deliver AI-enabled support safely, interactions between patients and AI must be continuously monitored and evaluated against an agreed upon set of performance criteria. This paper presents one such set of criteria which was developed to evaluate interactions with an AI Health Coach designed to support patients receiving obesity treatment and deployed with an active patient user base. The evaluation framework evolved through an iterative process of development, testing, refining, training, reviewing and supervision. The framework evaluates at both individual message and overall conversation level, rating interactions as Acceptable or Unacceptable in four domains: Fidelity, Accuracy, Safety, and Tone (FAST), with a series of questions to be considered with respect to each domain. Processes to ensure consistent evaluation quality were established and additional patient safety procedures were defined for escalations to healthcare providers based on clinical risk. The framework can be implemented by trained evaluators and offers a method by which healthcare settings deploying AI to support patients can review quality and safety, thus ensuring safe adoption.
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.