Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37902825›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2023

Physicians' Perspectives on AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Interview Study of the CURATE.AI Personalized Dose Optimization Platform.

Smrithi Vijayakumar, V Vien Lee, Qiao Ying Leong, Soo Jung Hong, Agata Blasiak, Dean Ho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. N-of-1 medicine.Singapore medical journal · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Smrithi VijayakumarThe N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-3304-7636
V Vien LeeThe N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0216-9032
Qiao Ying LeongThe N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-2369-4933
Soo Jung HongDepartment of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9962-1023
Agata BlasiakThe N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0727-7611
Dean HoThe N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7337-296X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians play a key role in integrating new clinical technology into care practices through user feedback and growth propositions to developers of the technology. As physicians are stakeholders involved through the technology iteration process, understanding their roles as users can provide nuanced insights into the workings of these technologies that are being explored. Therefore, understanding physicians' perceptions can be critical toward clinical validation, implementation, and downstream adoption. Given the increasing prevalence of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), there remains a need to gain an in-depth understanding of physicians' perceptions and expectations toward their downstream implementation. This paper explores physicians' perceptions of integrating CURATE.AI, a novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based and clinical stage personalized dosing CDSSs, into clinical practice.

objectiveThis study aims to understand physicians' perspectives of integrating CURATE.AI for clinical work and to gather insights on considerations of the implementation of AI-based CDSS tools.

methodsA total of 12 participants completed semistructured interviews examining their knowledge, experience, attitudes, risks, and future course of the personalized combination therapy dosing platform, CURATE.AI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded manually. The data were thematically analyzed.

resultsOverall, 3 broad themes and 9 subthemes were identified through thematic analysis. The themes covered considerations that physicians perceived as significant across various stages of new technology development, including trial, clinical implementation, and mass adoption.

conclusionsThe study laid out the various ways physicians interpreted an AI-based personalized dosing CDSS, CURATE.AI, for their clinical practice. The research pointed out that physicians' expectations during the different stages of technology exploration can be nuanced and layered with expectations of implementation that are relevant for technology developers and researchers.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPhysiciansArtificial IntelligenceAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchacceptanceadoptionAIartificial intelligenceattitudeCDSSclinical decision support systemdecision supportfocusinterviewinterviewsopinionperceptionperspectiveperspectivesqualitative

Identifiers

PMID37902825
PMCPMC10644191

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.