The Use of an Artificial Intelligence Platform OpenEvidence to Augment Clinical Decision-Making for Primary Care Physicians.

IF 3 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Ryan T Hurt, Christopher R Stephenson, Elizabeth A Gilman, Christopher A Aakre, Ivana T Croghan, Manpreet S Mundi, Karthik Ghosh, Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil
{"title":"The Use of an Artificial Intelligence Platform OpenEvidence to Augment Clinical Decision-Making for Primary Care Physicians.","authors":"Ryan T Hurt, Christopher R Stephenson, Elizabeth A Gilman, Christopher A Aakre, Ivana T Croghan, Manpreet S Mundi, Karthik Ghosh, Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil","doi":"10.1177/21501319251332215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms can potentially enhance clinical decision-making (CDM) in primary care settings. OpenEvidence (OE), an AI tool, draws from trusted sources to generate evidence-based medicine (EBM) recommendations to address clinical questions. However, its effectiveness in real-world primary care cases remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the performance of OE in providing EBM recommendations for five common chronic conditions in primary care: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, depression, and obesity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five patient cases were retrospectively analyzed. Physicians posed specific clinical questions, and OE responses were evaluated on clarity, relevance, evidence support, impact on CDM, and overall satisfaction. Four independent physicians provided ratings using a 0 to 4 scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>OE provided accurate, evidence-based recommendations in all cases, aligning with physician plans. OE was scored on a scale of zero to four, where zero was very unclear, and four was very clear. Mean scores across cases were clarity (3.55 ± 0.60), relevance (3.75 ± 0.44), support (3.35 ± 0.49), and satisfaction (3.60 ± 0.60). However, the impact on CDM was limited (1.95 ± 1.05), as OE primarily reinforced rather than modified plans.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OE was rated high in clarity, relevance, and evidence-based support, reinforcing physician decisions in common chronic conditions. While the impact on CDM was minimal due to the study's retrospective nature, OE shows promise in augmenting the primary care physician. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate its utility in complex cases and multidisciplinary settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":"16 ","pages":"21501319251332215"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12033599/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319251332215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms can potentially enhance clinical decision-making (CDM) in primary care settings. OpenEvidence (OE), an AI tool, draws from trusted sources to generate evidence-based medicine (EBM) recommendations to address clinical questions. However, its effectiveness in real-world primary care cases remains unknown.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of OE in providing EBM recommendations for five common chronic conditions in primary care: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, depression, and obesity.

Methods: Five patient cases were retrospectively analyzed. Physicians posed specific clinical questions, and OE responses were evaluated on clarity, relevance, evidence support, impact on CDM, and overall satisfaction. Four independent physicians provided ratings using a 0 to 4 scale.

Results: OE provided accurate, evidence-based recommendations in all cases, aligning with physician plans. OE was scored on a scale of zero to four, where zero was very unclear, and four was very clear. Mean scores across cases were clarity (3.55 ± 0.60), relevance (3.75 ± 0.44), support (3.35 ± 0.49), and satisfaction (3.60 ± 0.60). However, the impact on CDM was limited (1.95 ± 1.05), as OE primarily reinforced rather than modified plans.

Conclusion: OE was rated high in clarity, relevance, and evidence-based support, reinforcing physician decisions in common chronic conditions. While the impact on CDM was minimal due to the study's retrospective nature, OE shows promise in augmenting the primary care physician. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate its utility in complex cases and multidisciplinary settings.

使用人工智能平台开放证据来增强初级保健医生的临床决策。
背景:人工智能(AI)平台可以潜在地增强初级保健机构的临床决策(CDM)。OpenEvidence (OE)是一种人工智能工具,从可信来源中提取证据,生成循证医学(EBM)建议,以解决临床问题。然而,它在现实世界初级保健病例中的有效性仍然未知。目的:评价OE在初级保健中为五种常见慢性疾病(高血压、高脂血症、2型糖尿病、抑郁症和肥胖症)提供循证医学推荐方面的表现。方法:对5例患者进行回顾性分析。医生提出具体的临床问题,OE的回答在清晰度、相关性、证据支持、对CDM的影响和总体满意度方面进行评估。四位独立的医生使用0到4的量表提供了评分。结果:OE在所有病例中提供了准确的、基于证据的建议,与医生计划一致。OE的评分范围从0到4,0表示非常不清楚,4表示非常清楚。所有病例的平均得分为清晰度(3.55±0.60)、相关性(3.75±0.44)、支持度(3.35±0.49)和满意度(3.60±0.60)。然而,对CDM的影响是有限的(1.95±1.05),因为OE主要是加强而不是修改计划。结论:OE在清晰度、相关性和循证支持方面被评为高水平,加强了医生对常见慢性病的决策。虽然由于研究的回顾性性质,对CDM的影响很小,但OE显示出增加初级保健医生的希望。需要前瞻性试验来评估其在复杂病例和多学科环境中的效用。
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
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 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