Evidence mapPaperPMID 39219700Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024

Person-based design and evaluation of MIA, a digital medical interview assistant for radiology.

Kerstin Denecke, Daniel Reichenpfader, Dominic Willi, Karin Kennel, Harald Bonel, Knud Nairz, Nikola Cihoric, Damien Papaux, Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kerstin DeneckeArtificial Intelligence for Health, Institute for Patient-Centered Digital Health, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Daniel ReichenpfaderArtificial Intelligence for Health, Institute for Patient-Centered Digital Health, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Dominic WilliArtificial Intelligence for Health, Institute for Patient-Centered Digital Health, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Karin KennelArtificial Intelligence for Health, Institute for Patient-Centered Digital Health, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Harald BonelDepartment of Radiology, Lindenhof Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Knud NairzUniversity Institute for Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nikola CihoricDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Damien PapauxMimacom AG, Bern, Switzerland.
Hendrik von Tengg-KobligkUniversity Institute for Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Radiologists frequently lack direct patient contact due to time constraints. Digital medical interview assistants aim to facilitate the collection of health information. In this paper, we propose leveraging conversational agents to realize a medical interview assistant to facilitate medical history taking, while at the same time offering patients the opportunity to ask questions on the examination. Methods: MIA, the digital medical interview assistant, was developed using a person-based design approach, involving patient opinions and expert knowledge during the design and development with a specific use case in collecting information before a mammography examination. MIA consists of two modules: the interview module and the question answering module (Q&A). To ensure interoperability with clinical information systems, we use HL7 FHIR to store and exchange the results collected by MIA during the patient interaction. The system was evaluated according to an existing evaluation framework that covers a broad range of aspects related to the technical quality of a conversational agent including usability, but also accessibility and security. Results: Thirty-six patients recruited from two Swiss hospitals (Lindenhof group and Inselspital, Bern) and two patient organizations conducted the usability test. MIA was favorably received by the participants, who particularly noted the clarity of communication. However, there is room for improvement in the perceived quality of the conversation, the information provided, and the protection of privacy. The Q&A module achieved a precision of 0.51, a recall of 0.87 and an F-Score of 0.64 based on 114 questions asked by the participants. Security and accessibility also require improvements. Conclusion: The applied person-based process described in this paper can provide best practices for future development of medical interview assistants. The application of a standardized evaluation framework helped in saving time and ensures comparability of results.

Indexed as

algorithmsconsumer health informationconversational agentmedical history takingnatural language processingpatientsradiologyuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID39219700
PMCPMC11363708

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.