Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Question answering systems for health professionals at the point of care-a systematic review.
Kell, Gregory; Roberts, Angus; Umansky, Serge; Qian, Linglong; Ferrari, Davide; Soboczenski, Frank; Wallace, Byron C; Patel, Nikhil; Marshall, Iain J.
Afiliação
  • Kell G; Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE1 1UL, United Kingdom.
  • Roberts A; Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
  • Umansky S; Metadvice Ltd, London, Greater London, SW1Y 5JG, United Kingdom.
  • Qian L; Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom.
  • Ferrari D; Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE1 1UL, United Kingdom.
  • Soboczenski F; Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE1 1UL, United Kingdom.
  • Wallace BC; Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
  • Patel N; Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE1 1UL, United Kingdom.
  • Marshall IJ; Department of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, Greater London, SE1 1UL, United Kingdom.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 31(4): 1009-1024, 2024 04 03.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38366879
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Question answering (QA) systems have the potential to improve the quality of clinical care by providing health professionals with the latest and most relevant evidence. However, QA systems have not been widely adopted. This systematic review aims to characterize current medical QA systems, assess their suitability for healthcare, and identify areas of improvement. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

We searched PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, ACL Anthology, and forward and backward citations on February 7, 2023. We included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers describing the design and evaluation of biomedical QA systems. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. We conducted a narrative synthesis and risk of bias assessment for each study. We assessed the utility of biomedical QA systems.

RESULTS:

We included 79 studies and identified themes, including question realism, answer reliability, answer utility, clinical specialism, systems, usability, and evaluation methods. Clinicians' questions used to train and evaluate QA systems were restricted to certain sources, types and complexity levels. No system communicated confidence levels in the answers or sources. Many studies suffered from high risks of bias and applicability concerns. Only 8 studies completely satisfied any criterion for clinical utility, and only 7 reported user evaluations. Most systems were built with limited input from clinicians.

DISCUSSION:

While machine learning methods have led to increased accuracy, most studies imperfectly reflected real-world healthcare information needs. Key research priorities include developing more realistic healthcare QA datasets and considering the reliability of answer sources, rather than merely focusing on accuracy.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Am Med Inform Assoc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Am Med Inform Assoc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article