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

IF 3 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence Pub Date : 2024-08-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frai.2024.1431156
Kerstin Denecke, Daniel Reichenpfader, Dominic Willi, Karin Kennel, Harald Bonel, Knud Nairz, Nikola Cihoric, Damien Papaux, Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk
{"title":"Person-based design and evaluation of MIA, a digital medical interview assistant for radiology.","authors":"Kerstin Denecke, Daniel Reichenpfader, Dominic Willi, Karin Kennel, Harald Bonel, Knud Nairz, Nikola Cihoric, Damien Papaux, Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk","doi":"10.3389/frai.2024.1431156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":33315,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363708/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1431156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

以人为本设计和评估 MIA--放射学数字医学访谈助手。
导言:由于时间限制,放射科医生经常无法直接接触病人。数字医疗问诊助手旨在为收集健康信息提供便利。在本文中,我们建议利用对话代理来实现医疗问诊助手,以方便病史采集,同时为患者提供在检查中提问的机会:方法:数字医疗问诊助手 MIA 的开发采用了以人为本的设计方法,在设计和开发过程中参考了患者的意见和专家的知识,并以乳腺 X 射线检查前的信息收集为特定用例。MIA 由两个模块组成:访谈模块和问题解答模块(Q&A)。为确保与临床信息系统的互操作性,我们使用 HL7 FHIR 来存储和交换 MIA 在与患者互动过程中收集到的结果。我们根据现有的评估框架对该系统进行了评估,该框架涵盖了与对话代理技术质量相关的广泛方面,包括可用性、可访问性和安全性:从瑞士两家医院(伯尔尼的林登霍夫医院和 Inselspital 医院)和两个患者组织招募的 36 名患者进行了可用性测试。MIA 得到了参与者的好评,他们尤其注意到了通信的清晰度。不过,在对话质量、提供的信息和隐私保护方面还有待改进。根据参与者提出的 114 个问题,问答模块的精确度为 0.51,召回率为 0.87,F-Score 为 0.64。安全性和可访问性也需要改进:本文所描述的基于人的应用流程可为未来医学访谈助手的开发提供最佳实践。标准化评估框架的应用有助于节省时间并确保结果的可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.50%
发文量
272
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信