ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
An AI-powered data curation and publishing virtual assistant: usability and explainability/causability of, and patient interest in the first-generation prototype.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ensuring high quality and reusability of personal health data is costly and time-consuming. An AI-powered virtual assistant for health data curation and publishing could support patients to ensure harmonization and data quality enhancement, which improves interoperability and reusability. This formative evaluation study aimed to assess the usability of the first-generation (G1) prototype developed during the AI-powered data curation and publishing virtual assistant (AIDAVA) Horizon Europe project. Methods: In this formative evaluation study, we planned to recruit 45 patients with breast cancer and 45 patients with cardiovascular disease from three European countries. An intuitive front-end, supported by AI and non-AI data curation tools, is being developed across two generations. G1 was based on existing curation tools and early prototypes of tools being developed. Patients were tasked with ingesting and curating their personal health data, creating a personal health knowledge graph that represented their integrated, high-quality medical records. Usability of G1 was assessed using the system usability scale. The subjective importance of the explainability/causability of G1, the perceived fulfillment of these needs by G1, and interest in AIDAVA-like technology were explored using study-specific questionnaires. Results: A total of 83 patients were recruited; 70 patients completed the study, of whom 19 were unable to successfully curate their health data due to configuration issues when deploying the curation tools. Patients rated G1 as marginally acceptable on the system usability scale (59.1 ± 19.7/100) and moderately positive for explainability/causability (3.3-3.8/5), and were moderately positive to positive regarding their interest in AIDAVA-like technology (3.4-4.4/5). Discussion: Despite its marginal acceptability, G1 shows potential in automating data curation into a personal health knowledge graph, but it has not reached full maturity yet. G1 deployed very early prototypes of tools planned for the second-generation (G2) prototype, which may have contributed to the lower usability and explainability/causability scores. Conversely, patient interest in AIDAVA-like technology seems quite high at this stage of development, likely due to the promising potential of data curation and data publication technology. Improvements in the library of data curation and publishing tools are planned for G2 and are necessary to fully realize the value of the AIDAVA solution.
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.