A kinetic distribution model of evaporation, biosorption and biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the suspension of Pseudomonas stutzeri.

K. Dercová,B. Vrana,S. Balaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(98)00541-4

IF: 8.8

1999-03-01

Chemosphere

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

Henry David Jeffry Hogg,Mohaimen Al-Zubaidy,James Talks,Alastair K Denniston,Christopher J Kelly,Johann Malawana,Chrysanthi Papoutsi,Marion Dawn Teare,Pearse A Keane,Fiona R Beyer,Gregory Maniatopoulos,Technology Enhanced Macular Services Study Reference Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/39742

IF: 7.076

2023-01-11

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background: The rhetoric surrounding clinical artificial intelligence (AI) often exaggerates its effect on real-world care. Limited understanding of the factors that influence its implementation can perpetuate this. Objective: In this qualitative systematic review, we aimed to identify key stakeholders, consolidate their perspectives on clinical AI implementation, and characterize the evidence gaps that future qualitative research should target. Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE, EBSCO-CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Science Citation Index-Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for primary qualitative studies on individuals' perspectives on any application of clinical AI worldwide (January 2014-April 2021). The definition of clinical AI includes both rule-based and machine learning–enabled or non–rule-based decision support tools. The language of the reports was not an exclusion criterion. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening with a third arbiter of disagreement. Two reviewers assigned the Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research scores for each study. A single reviewer extracted free-text data relevant to clinical AI implementation, noting the stakeholders contributing to each excerpt. The best-fit framework synthesis used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. To validate the data and improve accessibility, coauthors representing each emergent stakeholder group codeveloped summaries of the factors most relevant to their respective groups. Results: The initial search yielded 4437 deduplicated articles, with 111 (2.5%) eligible for inclusion (median Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research score, 8/10). Five distinct stakeholder groups emerged from the data: health care professionals (HCPs), patients, carers and other members of the public, developers, health care managers and leaders, and regulators or policy makers, contributing 1204 (70%), 196 (11.4%), 133 (7.7%), 129 (7.5%), and 59 (3.4%) of 1721 eligible excerpts, respectively. All stakeholder groups independently identified a breadth of implementation factors, with each producing data that were mapped between 17 and 24 of the 27 adapted Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability subdomains. Most of the factors that stakeholders found influential in the implementation of rule-based clinical AI also applied to non–rule-based clinical AI, with the exception of intellectual property, regulation, and sociocultural attitudes. Conclusions: Clinical AI implementation is influenced by many interdependent factors, which are in turn influenced by at least 5 distinct stakeholder groups. This implies that effective research and practice of clinical AI implementation should consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. The current underrepresentation of perspectives from stakeholders other than HCPs in the literature may limit the anticipation and management of the factors that influence successful clinical AI implementation. Future research should not only widen the representation of tools and contexts in qualitative research but also specifically investigate the perspectives of all stakeholder HCPs and emerging aspects of non–rule-based clinical AI implementation. Trial Registration: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021256005; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256005

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
No-carrier-added meta-[123I]iodobenzylguanidine: synthesis and preliminary evaluation.

G. Vaidyanathan,M. Zalutsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-8051(94)00078-X

IF: 2.947

Nuclear Medicine and Biology

Abstract:
The usability and applicability of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks for research in the context of a national health service

Virginia Minogue,Karen Matvienko-Sikar,Catherine Hayes,Mary Morrissey,Gregory Gorman,Ana Terres

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00747-5

2021-07-26

Abstract:Background: Translating research findings into service improvements for patients and/or policy changes is a key challenge for health service organizations. The Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland launched the Action Plan for Health Research 2019-2029, as reported by Terrés (HSE, Dublin, 2019), one of the goals of which is to maximize the impact of the research that takes place within the service to achieve improvements in patient care, services, or policy change. The purpose of this research is to review the literature on knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) and to assess the suitability of the TMFs for HSE use, selecting one or more for this purpose. The aim is to produce guidance for HSE researchers and other health services staff, validate the usability of the framework(s) with researchers, and review and implement the guidance. It was hoped that identifying a suitable methodology would provide the means to increase the uptake and application of research findings, and reduce research wastage. This paper reports on the first part of the study: the review, assessment, and selection of knowledge translation TMFs for a national health service. Methods: An interdisciplinary working group of academic experts in implementation science, research wastage, and knowledge translation, along with key representatives from research funders (Health Research Board) and HSE personnel with expertise in quality improvement and research management, undertook a three-stage review and selection process to identify a knowledge translation TMF that would be suitable and usable for HSE purposes. The process included a literature review, consensus exercise, and a final consensus workshop. The review group adopted the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) developed by Birken et al. (Implement Sci 13: 143, 2018) to review knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. Results: From 247 knowledge translation TMFs initially identified, the first stage of the review identified 18 that met the criteria of validity, applicability, relevance, usability, and ability to be operationalized in the local context. A further review by a subgroup of the working group reduced this number to 11. A whole-group review selected six of these to be reviewed at a facilitated consensus workshop, which identified three that were suitable and applicable for HSE use. These were able to be mapped onto the four components of the HSE knowledge translation process: knowledge creation, knowledge into action, transfer and exchange of knowledge, and implementation and sustainability. Conclusion: The multiplicity of knowledge translation TMFs presents a challenge for health service researchers in making decisions about the appropriate methods for disseminating their research. Building a culture that uses research knowledge and evidence is important for organizations seeking to maximize the benefits from research. Supporting researchers with guidance on how to disseminate and translate their research can increase the uptake and application of research findings. The use of robust selection criteria enabled the HSE to select relevant TMFs and develop a process for increasing the dissemination and translation of research knowledge. The guidance developed to inform and educate researchers and knowledge users is expected to increase organizational capacity to promote a culture of research knowledge and evidence use within the HSE.
Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Literature Review and Content Analysis of Frameworks

Norah L Crossnohere,Mohamed Elsaid,Jonathan Paskett,Seuli Bose-Brill,John F P Bridges

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/36823

IF: 7.076

2022-08-26

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding in medicine despite a lack of consensus on its application and evaluation. Objective: We sought to identify current frameworks guiding the application and evaluation of AI for predictive analytics in medicine and to describe the content of these frameworks. We also assessed what stages along the AI translational spectrum (ie, AI development, reporting, evaluation, implementation, and surveillance) the content of each framework has been discussed. Methods: We performed a literature review of frameworks regarding the oversight of AI in medicine. The search included key topics such as "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "guidance as topic," and "translational science," and spanned the time period 2014-2022. Documents were included if they provided generalizable guidance regarding the use or evaluation of AI in medicine. Included frameworks are summarized descriptively and were subjected to content analysis. A novel evaluation matrix was developed and applied to appraise the frameworks' coverage of content areas across translational stages. Results: Fourteen frameworks are featured in the review, including six frameworks that provide descriptive guidance and eight that provide reporting checklists for medical applications of AI. Content analysis revealed five considerations related to the oversight of AI in medicine across frameworks: transparency, reproducibility, ethics, effectiveness, and engagement. All frameworks include discussions regarding transparency, reproducibility, ethics, and effectiveness, while only half of the frameworks discuss engagement. The evaluation matrix revealed that frameworks were most likely to report AI considerations for the translational stage of development and were least likely to report considerations for the translational stage of surveillance. Conclusions: Existing frameworks for the application and evaluation of AI in medicine notably offer less input on the role of engagement in oversight and regarding the translational stage of surveillance. Identifying and optimizing strategies for engagement are essential to ensure that AI can meaningfully benefit patients and other end users.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review

Stephanie Tulk Jesso,Aisling Kelliher,Harsh Sanghavi,Thomas Martin,Sarah Henrickson Parker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830345

2022-04-07

Abstract:The application of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare domains has received much attention in recent years, yet significant questions remain about how these new tools integrate into frontline user workflow, and how their design will impact implementation. Lack of acceptance among clinicians is a major barrier to the translation of healthcare innovations into clinical practice. In this systematic review, we examine when and how clinicians are consulted about their needs and desires for clinical AI tools. Forty-five articles met criteria for inclusion, of which 24 were considered design studies. The design studies used a variety of methods to solicit and gather user feedback, with interviews, surveys, and user evaluations. Our findings show that tool designers consult clinicians at various but inconsistent points during the design process, and most typically at later stages in the design cycle (82%, 19/24 design studies). We also observed a smaller amount of studies adopting a human-centered approach and where clinician input was solicited throughout the design process (22%, 5/24). A third (15/45) of all studies reported on clinician trust in clinical AI algorithms and tools. The surveyed articles did not universally report validation against the "gold standard" of clinical expertise or provide detailed descriptions of the algorithms or computational methods used in their work. To realize the full potential of AI tools within healthcare settings, our review suggests there are opportunities to more thoroughly integrate frontline users' needs and feedback in the design process.
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal

Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi,France Légaré,Gauri Sharma,Patrick Archambault,Herve Tchala Vignon Zomahoun,Sam Chandavong,Nathalie Rheault,Sabrina T Wong,Lyse Langlois,Yves Couturier,Jose L Salmeron,Marie-Pierre Gagnon,Jean Légaré

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/29839

IF: 7.076

2021-09-03

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background Research on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC. Objective We intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings. Methods We conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data. Results We retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%). Conclusions We observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care Practice: Scoping Review

Malvika Sharma,Carl Savage,Monika Nair,Ingrid Larsson,Petra Svedberg,Jens M Nygren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/40238

IF: 7.076

2022-10-06

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is often heralded as a potential disruptor that will transform the practice of medicine. The amount of data collected and available in health care, coupled with advances in computational power, has contributed to advances in AI and an exponential growth of publications. However, the development of AI applications does not guarantee their adoption into routine practice. There is a risk that despite the resources invested, benefits for patients, staff, and society will not be realized if AI implementation is not better understood. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore how the implementation of AI in health care practice has been described and researched in the literature by answering 3 questions: What are the characteristics of research on implementation of AI in practice? What types and applications of AI systems are described? What characteristics of the implementation process for AI systems are discernible? Methods: A scoping review was conducted of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases to identify empirical studies of AI implementation in health care since 2011, in addition to snowball sampling of selected reference lists. Using Rayyan software, we screened titles and abstracts and selected full-text articles. Data from the included articles were charted and summarized. Results: Of the 9218 records retrieved, 45 (0.49%) articles were included. The articles cover diverse clinical settings and disciplines; most (32/45, 71%) were published recently, were from high-income countries (33/45, 73%), and were intended for care providers (25/45, 56%). AI systems are predominantly intended for clinical care, particularly clinical care pertaining to patient-provider encounters. More than half (24/45, 53%) possess no action autonomy but rather support human decision-making. The focus of most research was on establishing the effectiveness of interventions (16/45, 35%) or related to technical and computational aspects of AI systems (11/45, 24%). Focus on the specifics of implementation processes does not yet seem to be a priority in research, and the use of frameworks to guide implementation is rare. Conclusions: Our current empirical knowledge derives from implementations of AI systems with low action autonomy and approaches common to implementations of other types of information systems. To develop a specific and empirically based implementation framework, further research is needed on the more disruptive types of AI systems being implemented in routine care and on aspects unique to AI implementation in health care, such as building trust, addressing transparency issues, developing explainable and interpretable solutions, and addressing ethical concerns around privacy and data protection.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Artificial intelligence in clinical and translational science: Successes, challenges and opportunities

Elmer V. Bernstam,Paula K. Shireman,Funda Meric‐Bernstam,Meredith Zozus,Xiaoqian Jiang,Bradley B. Brimhall,Ashley K. Windham,Susanne Schmidt,Shyam Visweswaran,Ye Ye,Heath Goodrum,Yaobin Ling,Seemran Barapatre,Michael J. Becich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13175

2021-10-30

Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming many domains, including finance, agriculture, defense, and biomedicine. In this paper, we focus on the role of AI in clinical and translational research (CTR), including preclinical research (T1), clinical research (T2), clinical implementation (T3), and public (or population) health (T4). Given the rapid evolution of AI in CTR, we present three complementary perspectives: (1) scoping literature review, (2) survey, and (3) analysis of federally funded projects. For each CTR phase, we addressed challenges, successes, failures, and opportunities for AI. We surveyed Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs regarding AI projects at their institutions. Nineteen of 63 CTSA hubs (30%) responded to the survey. The most common funding source (48.5%) was the federal government. The most common translational phase was T2 (clinical research, 40.2%). Clinicians were the intended users in 44.6% of projects and researchers in 32.3% of projects. The most common computational approaches were supervised machine learning (38.6%) and deep learning (34.2%). The number of projects steadily increased from 2012 to 2020. Finally, we analyzed 2604 AI projects at CTSA hubs using the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) database for 2011-2019. We mapped available abstracts to medical subject headings and found that nervous system (16.3%) and mental disorders (16.2) were the most common topics addressed. From a computational perspective, big data (32.3%) and deep learning (30.0%) were most common. This work represents a snapshot in time of the role of AI in the CTSA program.

medicine, research & experimental
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal (Preprint)

Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi,France Légaré,Gauri Sharma,Patrick Archambault,Herve Tchala Vignon Zomahoun,Sam Chandavong,Nathalie Rheault,Sabrina T Wong,Lyse Langlois,Yves Couturier,Jose L Salmeron,Marie-Pierre Gagnon,Jean Légaré

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.29839

2021-04-23

Abstract:BACKGROUND Research on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into community-based primary health care (CBPHC) has highlighted several advantages and disadvantages in practice regarding, for example, facilitating diagnosis and disease management, as well as doubts concerning the unintended harmful effects of this integration. However, there is a lack of evidence about a comprehensive knowledge synthesis that could shed light on AI systems tested or implemented in CBPHC. OBJECTIVE We intended to identify and evaluate published studies that have tested or implemented AI in CBPHC settings. METHODS We conducted a systematic scoping review informed by an earlier study and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and reported the findings according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from the date of inception until February 2020, in seven bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. The selected studies considered all populations who provide and receive care in CBPHC settings, AI interventions that had been implemented, tested, or both, and assessed outcomes related to patients, health care providers, or CBPHC systems. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified records, read the selected full texts, and extracted data from the included studies using a validated extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. A third reviewer also validated all the extracted data. RESULTS We retrieved 22,113 documents. After the removal of duplicates, 16,870 documents were screened, and 90 peer-reviewed publications met our inclusion criteria. Machine learning (ML) (41/90, 45%), natural language processing (NLP) (24/90, 27%), and expert systems (17/90, 19%) were the most commonly studied AI interventions. These were primarily implemented for diagnosis, detection, or surveillance purposes. Neural networks (ie, convolutional neural networks and abductive networks) demonstrated the highest accuracy, considering the given database for the given clinical task. The risk of bias in diagnosis or prognosis studies was the lowest in the participant category (4/49, 4%) and the highest in the outcome category (22/49, 45%). CONCLUSIONS We observed variabilities in reporting the participants, types of AI methods, analyses, and outcomes, and highlighted the large gap in the effective development and implementation of AI in CBPHC. Further studies are needed to efficiently guide the development and implementation of AI interventions in CBPHC settings.
Barriers to and Facilitators of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Health Care: Scoping Review

Masooma Hassan,Andre Kushniruk,Elizabeth Borycki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/48633

2024-08-29

Abstract:Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) use cases in health care are on the rise, with the potential to improve operational efficiency and care outcomes. However, the translation of AI into practical, everyday use has been limited, as its effectiveness relies on successful implementation and adoption by clinicians, patients, and other health care stakeholders. Objective: As adoption is a key factor in the successful proliferation of an innovation, this scoping review aimed at presenting an overview of the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the guidance provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect databases were searched to identify publications in English that reported on the barriers to or facilitators of AI adoption in health care. This review focused on articles published between January 2011 and December 2023. The review did not have any limitations regarding the health care setting (hospital or community) or the population (patients, clinicians, physicians, or health care administrators). A thematic analysis was conducted on the selected articles to map factors associated with the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. Results: A total of 2514 articles were identified in the initial search. After title and abstract reviews, 50 (1.99%) articles were included in the final analysis. These articles were reviewed for the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. Most articles were empirical studies, literature reviews, reports, and thought articles. Approximately 18 categories of barriers and facilitators were identified. These were organized sequentially to provide considerations for AI development, implementation, and the overall structure needed to facilitate adoption. Conclusions: The literature review revealed that trust is a significant catalyst of adoption, and it was found to be impacted by several barriers identified in this review. A governance structure can be a key facilitator, among others, in ensuring all the elements identified as barriers are addressed appropriately. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of AI in health care is still, in many ways, dependent on the establishment of regulatory and legal frameworks. Further research into a combination of governance and implementation frameworks, models, or theories to enhance trust that would specifically enable adoption is needed to provide the necessary guidance to those translating AI research into practice. Future research could also be expanded to include attempts at understanding patients' perspectives on complex, high-risk AI use cases and how the use of AI applications affects clinical practice and patient care, including sociotechnical considerations, as more algorithms are implemented in actual clinical environments.
The 7-stranded structure of relaxed scallop muscle myosin filaments: support for a common head configuration in myosin-regulated muscles.

Hind A. Al-Khayat,E. Morris,J. Squire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2009.02.006

IF: 3.234

2009-05-01

Journal of Structural Biology

Abstract:
Implementing AI in healthcare-the relevance of trust: a scoping review

Emilie Steerling,Elin Siira,Per Nilsen,Petra Svedberg,Jens Nygren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2023.1211150

2023-08-24

Abstract:Background: The process of translation of AI and its potential benefits into practice in healthcare services has been slow in spite of its rapid development. Trust in AI in relation to implementation processes is an important aspect. Without a clear understanding, the development of effective implementation strategies will not be possible, nor will AI advance despite the significant investments and possibilities. Objective: This study aimed to explore the scientific literature regarding how trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare is conceptualized and what influences trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare. Methods: This scoping review included five scientific databases. These were searched to identify publications related to the study aims. Articles were included if they were published in English, after 2012, and peer-reviewed. Two independent reviewers conducted an abstract and full-text review, as well as carrying out a thematic analysis with an inductive approach to address the study aims. The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: A total of eight studies were included in the final review. We found that trust was conceptualized in different ways. Most empirical studies had an individual perspective where trust was directed toward the technology's capability. Two studies focused on trust as relational between people in the context of the AI application rather than as having trust in the technology itself. Trust was also understood by its determinants and as having a mediating role, positioned between characteristics and AI use. The thematic analysis yielded three themes: individual characteristics, AI characteristics and contextual characteristics, which influence trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare. Conclusions: Findings showed that the conceptualization of trust in AI differed between the studies, as well as which determinants they accounted for as influencing trust. Few studies looked beyond individual characteristics and AI characteristics. Future empirical research addressing trust in AI in relation to implementation in healthcare should have a more holistic view of the concept to be able to manage the many challenges, uncertainties, and perceived risks.
Public perceptions on the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative meta-synthesis

Chenxi Wu,Huiqiong Xu,Dingxi Bai,Xinyu Chen,Jing Gao,Xiaolian Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066322

IF: 3.006

2023-01-05

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives Medical artificial intelligence (AI) has been used widely applied in clinical field due to its convenience and innovation. However, several policy and regulatory issues such as credibility, sharing of responsibility and ethics have raised concerns in the use of AI. It is therefore necessary to understand the general public's views on medical AI. Here, a meta-synthesis was conducted to analyse and summarise the public's understanding of the application of AI in the healthcare field, to provide recommendations for future use and management of AI in medical practice. Design This was a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Method A search was performed on the following databases to identify studies published in English and Chinese: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of science, Cochrane library, Embase, PsycINFO, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP. The search was conducted from database inception to 25 December 2021. The meta-aggregation approach of JBI was used to summarise findings from qualitative studies, focusing on the public's perception of the application of AI in healthcare. Results Of the 5128 studies screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria, hence were incorporated into analysis. Three synthesised findings were used as the basis of our conclusions, including advantages of medical AI from the public's perspective, ethical and legal concerns about medical AI from the public's perspective, and public suggestions on the application of AI in medical field. Conclusion Results showed that the public acknowledges the unique advantages and convenience of medical AI. Meanwhile, several concerns about the application of medical AI were observed, most of which involve ethical and legal issues. The standard application and reasonable supervision of medical AI is key to ensuring its effective utilisation. Based on the public's perspective, this analysis provides insights and suggestions for health managers on how to implement and apply medical AI smoothly, while ensuring safety in healthcare practice. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022315033.

medicine, general & internal
Role of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Real-Life Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

Jiamin Yin,Kee Yuan Ngiam,Hock Hai Teo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/25759

IF: 7.076

2021-04-22

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are growing at an unprecedented pace in health care, including disease diagnosis, triage or screening, risk analysis, surgical operations, and so forth. Despite a great deal of research in the development and validation of health care AI, only few applications have been actually implemented at the frontlines of clinical practice. Objective The objective of this study was to systematically review AI applications that have been implemented in real-life clinical practice. Methods We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL to identify relevant articles published between January 2010 and May 2020. We also hand searched premier computer science journals and conferences as well as registered clinical trials. Studies were included if they reported AI applications that had been implemented in real-world clinical settings. Results We identified 51 relevant studies that reported the implementation and evaluation of AI applications in clinical practice, of which 13 adopted a randomized controlled trial design and eight adopted an experimental design. The AI applications targeted various clinical tasks, such as screening or triage (n=16), disease diagnosis (n=16), risk analysis (n=14), and treatment (n=7). The most commonly addressed diseases and conditions were sepsis (n=6), breast cancer (n=5), diabetic retinopathy (n=4), and polyp and adenoma (n=4). Regarding the evaluation outcomes, we found that 26 studies examined the performance of AI applications in clinical settings, 33 studies examined the effect of AI applications on clinician outcomes, 14 studies examined the effect on patient outcomes, and one study examined the economic impact associated with AI implementation. Conclusions This review indicates that research on the clinical implementation of AI applications is still at an early stage despite the great potential. More research needs to assess the benefits and challenges associated with clinical AI applications through a more rigorous methodology.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Stakeholders’ views on the organisational factors affecting application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review protocol

Reda Lebcir,Tetiana Hill,Rifat Atun,Marija Cubric

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044074

IF: 3.006

2021-03-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) offers great potential for transforming healthcare delivery leading to better patient-outcomes and more efficient care delivery. However, despite these advantages, integration of AI in healthcare has not kept pace with technological advancements. Previous research indicates the importance of understanding various organisational factors that shape integration of new technologies in healthcare. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide an overview of the existing organisational factors influencing adoption of AI in healthcare from the perspectives of different relevant stakeholders. By conducting this review, the various organisational factors that facilitate or hinder AI implementation in healthcare could be identified. Methods and analysis This study will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, which includes the following stages: (1) defining and aligning objectives and questions, (2) developing and aligning the inclusions criteria with objectives and questions, (3) describing the planned approach to evidence searching and selection, (4) searching for the evidence, (5) selecting the evidence, (6) extracting the evidence, (7) charting the evidence, and summarising the evidence with regard to the objectives and questions. The databases searched will be MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (Plus), PubMed, Cohrane Library, Scopus, MathSciNet, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, O’REILLY and Social Care Online from January 2000 to June 2021. Search results will be reported based on The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. The review will adopt diffusion of innovations theory, technology acceptance model and stakeholder theory as guiding conceptual models. Narrative synthesis will be used to integrate the findings. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval will not be sought for this scoping review as it only includes information from previously published studies. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, to ensure its findings reach relevant stakeholders, they will be presented at relevant conferences.

medicine, general & internal
Beliefs, experiences and concerns of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: A qualitative synthesis

Carol-Ann Fazakarley,Maria Breen,Ben Thompson,Paul Leeson,Victoria Williamson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241230075

2024-01-01

Digital Health

Abstract:Objective Artificial intelligence (AI) is a developing field in the context of healthcare. As this technology continues to be implemented in patient care, there is a growing need to understand the thoughts and experiences of stakeholders in this area to ensure that future AI development and implementation is successful. The aim of this study was to conduct a literature search of qualitative studies exploring the opinions of stakeholders such as clinicians, patients, and technology experts in order to establish the most common themes and ideas that have been presented in this research. Methods A literature search was conducted of existing qualitative research on stakeholder beliefs about the use of AI use in healthcare. Twenty-one papers were selected and analysed resulting in the development of four key themes relating to patient care, patient–doctor relationships, lack of education and resources, and the need for regulations. Results Overall, patients and healthcare workers are open to the use of AI in care and appear positive about potential benefits. However, concerns were raised relating to the lack of empathy in interactions of AI tools, and potential risks that may arise from the data collection needed for AI use and development. Stakeholders in the healthcare, technology, and business sectors all stressed that there was a lack of appropriate education, funding, and guidelines surrounding AI, and these concerns needed to be addressed to ensure future implementation is safe and suitable for patient care. Conclusion Ultimately, the results found in this study highlighted that there was a need for communication between stakeholder in order for these concerns to be addressed, mitigate potential risks, and maximise benefits for patients and clinicians alike. The results also identified a need for further qualitative research in this area to further understand stakeholder experiences as AI use continues to develop.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics,health policy & services
Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis

Vinh Vo,Gang Chen,Yves Saint James Aquino,Stacy M Carter,Quynh Nga Do,Maame Esi Woode

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116357

Abstract:Introduction: Despite the proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology over the last decade, clinician, patient, and public perceptions of its use in healthcare raise a number of ethical, legal and social questions. We systematically review the literature on attitudes towards the use of AI in healthcare from patients, the general public and health professionals' perspectives to understand these issues from multiple perspectives. Methodology: A search for original research articles using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods published between 1 Jan 2001 to 24 Aug 2021 was conducted on six bibliographic databases. Data were extracted and classified into different themes representing views on: (i) knowledge and familiarity of AI, (ii) AI benefits, risks, and challenges, (iii) AI acceptability, (iv) AI development, (v) AI implementation, (vi) AI regulations, and (vii) Human - AI relationship. Results: The final search identified 7,490 different records of which 105 publications were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. While the majority of patients, the general public and health professionals generally had a positive attitude towards the use of AI in healthcare, all groups indicated some perceived risks and challenges. Commonly perceived risks included data privacy; reduced professional autonomy; algorithmic bias; healthcare inequities; and greater burnout to acquire AI-related skills. While patients had mixed opinions on whether healthcare workers suffer from job loss due to the use of AI, health professionals strongly indicated that AI would not be able to completely replace them in their professions. Both groups shared similar doubts about AI's ability to deliver empathic care. The need for AI validation, transparency, explainability, and patient and clinical involvement in the development of AI was emphasised. To help successfully implement AI in health care, most participants envisioned that an investment in training and education campaigns was necessary, especially for health professionals. Lack of familiarity, lack of trust, and regulatory uncertainties were identified as factors hindering AI implementation. Regarding AI regulations, key themes included data access and data privacy. While the general public and patients exhibited a willingness to share anonymised data for AI development, there remained concerns about sharing data with insurance or technology companies. One key domain under this theme was the question of who should be held accountable in the case of adverse events arising from using AI. Conclusions: While overall positivity persists in attitudes and preferences toward AI use in healthcare, some prevalent problems require more attention. There is a need to go beyond addressing algorithm-related issues to look at the translation of legislation and guidelines into practice to ensure fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI.
Resident's column: "Doctor, is my child growing ok?".

R. Burgos,D. Jutte

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/0090-4481-20000901-12

2000-09-01

Pediatric Annals

Abstract:
Driver Drowsiness Detection System Based on Feature Representation Learning Using Various Deep Networks

Sanghyuk Park,Fei Pan,Sunghun Kang,C. Yoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54526-4_12

2016-11-20

Abstract:
Experiences of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study of UK clinician and key stakeholder perspectives

C A Fazakarley,Maria Breen,Paul Leeson,Ben Thompson,Victoria Williamson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076950

IF: 3.006

2023-12-11

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing field in healthcare, with tools being developed across various specialties to support healthcare professionals and reduce workloads. It is important to understand the experiences of professionals working in healthcare to ensure that future AI tools are acceptable and effectively implemented. The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of UK healthcare workers and other key stakeholders about the use of AI in the National Health Service (NHS). Design: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted remotely via MS Teams. Thematic analysis was carried out. Setting: NHS and UK higher education institutes. Participants: Thirteen participants were recruited, including clinical and non-clinical participants working for the NHS and researchers working to develop AI tools for healthcare settings. Results: Four core themes were identified: positive perceptions of AI; potential barriers to using AI in healthcare; concerns regarding AI use and steps needed to ensure the acceptability of future AI tools. Overall, we found that those working in healthcare were generally open to the use of AI and expected it to have many benefits for patients and facilitate access to care. However, concerns were raised regarding the security of patient data, the potential for misdiagnosis and that AI could increase the burden on already strained healthcare staff. Conclusion: This study found that healthcare staff are willing to engage with AI research and incorporate AI tools into care pathways. Going forward, the NHS and AI developers will need to collaborate closely to ensure that future tools are suitable for their intended use and do not negatively impact workloads or patient trust. Future AI studies should continue to incorporate the views of key stakeholders to improve tool acceptability. Trial registration number: NCT05028179; ISRCTN15113915; IRAS ref: 293515.

A kinetic distribution model of evaporation, biosorption and biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the suspension of Pseudomonas stutzeri.

Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

No-carrier-added meta-[123I]iodobenzylguanidine: synthesis and preliminary evaluation.

The usability and applicability of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks for research in the context of a national health service

Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Literature Review and Content Analysis of Frameworks

Inclusion of Clinicians in the Development and Evaluation of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Systematic Literature Review

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal

Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care Practice: Scoping Review

Artificial intelligence in clinical and translational science: Successes, challenges and opportunities

Application of Artificial Intelligence in Community-Based Primary Health Care: Systematic Scoping Review and Critical Appraisal (Preprint)

Barriers to and Facilitators of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Health Care: Scoping Review

The 7-stranded structure of relaxed scallop muscle myosin filaments: support for a common head configuration in myosin-regulated muscles.

Implementing AI in healthcare-the relevance of trust: a scoping review

Public perceptions on the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative meta-synthesis

Role of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Real-Life Clinical Practice: Systematic Review

Stakeholders’ views on the organisational factors affecting application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review protocol

Beliefs, experiences and concerns of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: A qualitative synthesis

Multi-stakeholder preferences for the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review and thematic analysis

Resident's column: "Doctor, is my child growing ok?".

Driver Drowsiness Detection System Based on Feature Representation Learning Using Various Deep Networks

Experiences of using artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative study of UK clinician and key stakeholder perspectives