Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35849426›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2022

Combining Machine Learning, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Value-Based Health Care: Protocol for Scoping Reviews.

Tyler Raclin, Amy Price, Christopher Stave, Eugenia Lee, Biren Reddy, Junsung Kim, Larry Chu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tyler RaclinDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2720-863X
Amy PriceDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5200-7322
Christopher StaveLane Medical Library Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8232-3994
Eugenia LeeUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5609-4195
Biren ReddyUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8891-3610
Junsung KimUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9117-4628
Larry ChuDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-6402

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are self-reporting tools that can measure important information about patients, such as health priorities, experience, and perception of outcome. The use of traditional objective measures such as vital signs and lab values can be supplemented with these self-reported patient measures to provide a more complete picture of a patient's health status. Machine learning, the use of computer algorithms that improve automatically through experience, is a powerful tool in health care that often does not use subjective information shared by patients. However, machine learning has largely been based on objective measures and has been developed without patient or public input. Algorithms often do not have access to critical information from patients and may be missing priorities and measures that matter to patients. Combining objective measures with patient-reported measures can improve the ability of machine learning algorithms to assess patients' health status and improve the delivery of health care.

objectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to identify gaps and benefits in the way machine learning is integrated with patient-reported outcomes for the development of improved public and patient partnerships in research and health care.

methodsWe reviewed the following 3 questions to learn from existing literature about the reported gaps and best methods for combining machine learning and patient-reported outcomes: (1) How are the public engaged as involved partners in the development of artificial intelligence in medicine? (2) What examples of good practice can we identify for the integration of PROMs into machine learning algorithms? (3) How has value-based health care influenced the development of artificial intelligence in health care? We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects in addition to PROSPERO and the ClinicalTrials website. The authors will use Covidence to screen titles and abstracts and to conduct the review. We will include systematic reviews and overviews published in any language and may explore additional study types. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies are included in the reviews.

resultsThe search is completed, and Covidence software will be used to work collaboratively. We will report the review using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for systematic reviews.

conclusionsFindings from our review will help us identify examples of good practice for how to involve the public in the development of machine learning systems as well as interventions and outcomes that have used PROMs and PREMs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36395.

Indexed as

algorithmartificial intelligenceeHealthmachine learningpatient experiencepatient-reported experience measurespatient-reported outcome measuresscoping reviewvalue-based care

Identifiers

PMID35849426
PMCPMC9345029

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.