ArticleJMIR AI2025
Rethinking AI Workflows: Guidelines for Scientific Evaluation in Digital Health Companies.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing digital health, driving innovation in care delivery and operational efficiency. Despite its potential, many AI systems fail to meet real-world expectations due to limited evaluation practices that focus narrowly on short-term metrics like efficiency and technical accuracy. Ignoring factors such as usability, trust, transparency, and adaptability hinders AI adoption, scalability, and long-term impact in health care. This paper emphasizes the importance of embedding scientific evaluation as a core operational layer throughout the AI life cycle. We outline practical guidelines for digital health companies to improve AI integration and evaluation, informed by over 35 years of experience in science, the digital health industry, and AI development. It describes a multistep approach, including stakeholder analysis, real-time monitoring, and iterative improvement, that digital health companies can adopt to ensure robust AI integration. Key recommendations include assessing stakeholder needs, designing AI systems that can check its own work, conducting testing to address usability and biases, and ensuring continuous improvement to keep systems user-centered and adaptable. By integrating these guidelines, digital health companies can improve AI reliability, scalability, and trustworthiness, driving better health care delivery and stakeholder alignment.
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.