改革急诊分诊:基于场景的初步横断面研究,比较人工智能模型和临床专业知识,以提高准确性。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Suna Eraybar, Evren Dal, Mevlut Okan Aydin, Maruf Begenen
{"title":"改革急诊分诊:基于场景的初步横断面研究,比较人工智能模型和临床专业知识,以提高准确性。","authors":"Suna Eraybar, Evren Dal, Mevlut Okan Aydin, Maruf Begenen","doi":"10.4149/BLL_2024_114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study examines triage judgments in emergency settings and compares the outcomes of artificial intelligence models for healthcare professionals. It discusses the disparities in precision rates between subjective evaluations by health professionals with objective assessments of AI systems.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>For the analysis of the efficacy of emergency triage; 50 virtual patient scenarios had been created. Emergency medicine residents and other healthcare providers who had triage education were tasked with categorizing triage levels for virtual patient scenarios. Also artificial intelligence systems, tasked for resolving the same scenarios. All of them were asked to use three color-coded triage of the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health. The answer keys were created by consensus of the researchers. In addition, Emergency medicine specialists were asked to evaluate the acuity level of each scenario in order to perform sub-analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study consisted of 86 healthcare professionals, comprising 31 Emergency medicine residents (26.5%), 1 paramedic (0.9%), 5 emergency health technicians (4.3%), and 80 nurses (68.4%). Google Bard AI and OpenAI Chat GPT v.3.5 were used as artificial intelligence systems. The responses compared with the answer key to determine each groups efficacy. As planned the responses from healthcare professionals were analyzed individually for acuity level of scenarios. Emergency medicine residents and other groups of healthcare providers had significantly higher numbers of correct answers compared to Google Bard and Chat GPT (n=30.7 vs n=25.5). There was no significant difference between ChatGPT and Bard for low and high acuity scenarios (p=0.821)CONCLUSION: AI models can examine extensive data sets and make more accurate and quicker triage judgments with sophisticated algorithms. However, in this study, we found that the triage ability of artificial intelligence is not as sufficient as humans. A more efficient triage system can be developed by integrating artificial intelligence with human input, rather than solely relying on technology (Tab. 4, Ref. 41). Text in PDF www.elis.sk Keywords: emergency triage, AI applications, health technology, artificial intelligence, emergency management.</p>","PeriodicalId":55328,"journal":{"name":"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transforming emergency triage: A preliminary, scenario-based cross-sectional study comparing artificial intelligence models and clinical expertise for enhanced accuracy.\",\"authors\":\"Suna Eraybar, Evren Dal, Mevlut Okan Aydin, Maruf Begenen\",\"doi\":\"10.4149/BLL_2024_114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study examines triage judgments in emergency settings and compares the outcomes of artificial intelligence models for healthcare professionals. It discusses the disparities in precision rates between subjective evaluations by health professionals with objective assessments of AI systems.</p><p><strong>Material and method: </strong>For the analysis of the efficacy of emergency triage; 50 virtual patient scenarios had been created. Emergency medicine residents and other healthcare providers who had triage education were tasked with categorizing triage levels for virtual patient scenarios. Also artificial intelligence systems, tasked for resolving the same scenarios. All of them were asked to use three color-coded triage of the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health. The answer keys were created by consensus of the researchers. In addition, Emergency medicine specialists were asked to evaluate the acuity level of each scenario in order to perform sub-analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study consisted of 86 healthcare professionals, comprising 31 Emergency medicine residents (26.5%), 1 paramedic (0.9%), 5 emergency health technicians (4.3%), and 80 nurses (68.4%). Google Bard AI and OpenAI Chat GPT v.3.5 were used as artificial intelligence systems. The responses compared with the answer key to determine each groups efficacy. As planned the responses from healthcare professionals were analyzed individually for acuity level of scenarios. Emergency medicine residents and other groups of healthcare providers had significantly higher numbers of correct answers compared to Google Bard and Chat GPT (n=30.7 vs n=25.5). There was no significant difference between ChatGPT and Bard for low and high acuity scenarios (p=0.821)CONCLUSION: AI models can examine extensive data sets and make more accurate and quicker triage judgments with sophisticated algorithms. However, in this study, we found that the triage ability of artificial intelligence is not as sufficient as humans. A more efficient triage system can be developed by integrating artificial intelligence with human input, rather than solely relying on technology (Tab. 4, Ref. 41). Text in PDF www.elis.sk Keywords: emergency triage, AI applications, health technology, artificial intelligence, emergency management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2024_114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bratislava Medical Journal-Bratislavske Lekarske Listy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2024_114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介本研究探讨了急诊环境中的分诊判断,并比较了医疗专业人员人工智能模型的结果。它讨论了医护人员的主观评价与人工智能系统的客观评估在精确率上的差异:为了分析急诊分诊的有效性,我们创建了 50 个虚拟病人场景。急诊科住院医师和其他接受过分流教育的医护人员负责对虚拟病人场景的分流级别进行分类。同时,人工智能系统也承担了解决相同情景的任务。他们都被要求使用土耳其共和国卫生部的三种颜色编码分流法。答案键由研究人员共同制定。此外,还要求急诊医学专家对每种情景的严重程度进行评估,以便进行次级分析:研究对象包括 86 名医疗保健专业人员,其中包括 31 名急诊医学住院医师(26.5%)、1 名辅助医务人员(0.9%)、5 名急诊医疗技术人员(4.3%)和 80 名护士(68.4%)。Google Bard AI 和 OpenAI Chat GPT v.3.5 被用作人工智能系统。将回答与答案要点进行比较,以确定各组的功效。按照计划,医护人员的回答将根据情景的严重程度进行单独分析。与 Google Bard 和 Chat GPT 相比,急诊科住院医师和其他医护人员群体的正确答案数明显更高(n=30.7 vs n=25.5)。ChatGPT 和 Bard 在低急诊率和高急诊率情况下没有明显差异(P=0.821)。结论:人工智能模型可以检查大量数据集,并通过复杂的算法做出更准确、更快速的分诊判断。然而,在这项研究中,我们发现人工智能的分诊能力还不如人类。通过将人工智能与人工输入相结合,而不是单纯依赖技术,可以开发出更高效的分流系统(参考文献 41,表 4)。Text in PDF www.elis.sk Keywords: emergency triage, AI applications, health technology, artificial intelligence, emergency management.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transforming emergency triage: A preliminary, scenario-based cross-sectional study comparing artificial intelligence models and clinical expertise for enhanced accuracy.

Introduction: This study examines triage judgments in emergency settings and compares the outcomes of artificial intelligence models for healthcare professionals. It discusses the disparities in precision rates between subjective evaluations by health professionals with objective assessments of AI systems.

Material and method: For the analysis of the efficacy of emergency triage; 50 virtual patient scenarios had been created. Emergency medicine residents and other healthcare providers who had triage education were tasked with categorizing triage levels for virtual patient scenarios. Also artificial intelligence systems, tasked for resolving the same scenarios. All of them were asked to use three color-coded triage of the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health. The answer keys were created by consensus of the researchers. In addition, Emergency medicine specialists were asked to evaluate the acuity level of each scenario in order to perform sub-analyses.

Results: The study consisted of 86 healthcare professionals, comprising 31 Emergency medicine residents (26.5%), 1 paramedic (0.9%), 5 emergency health technicians (4.3%), and 80 nurses (68.4%). Google Bard AI and OpenAI Chat GPT v.3.5 were used as artificial intelligence systems. The responses compared with the answer key to determine each groups efficacy. As planned the responses from healthcare professionals were analyzed individually for acuity level of scenarios. Emergency medicine residents and other groups of healthcare providers had significantly higher numbers of correct answers compared to Google Bard and Chat GPT (n=30.7 vs n=25.5). There was no significant difference between ChatGPT and Bard for low and high acuity scenarios (p=0.821)CONCLUSION: AI models can examine extensive data sets and make more accurate and quicker triage judgments with sophisticated algorithms. However, in this study, we found that the triage ability of artificial intelligence is not as sufficient as humans. A more efficient triage system can be developed by integrating artificial intelligence with human input, rather than solely relying on technology (Tab. 4, Ref. 41). Text in PDF www.elis.sk Keywords: emergency triage, AI applications, health technology, artificial intelligence, emergency management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
185
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The international biomedical journal - Bratislava Medical Journal – Bratislavske lekarske listy (Bratisl Lek Listy/Bratisl Med J) publishes peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of biomedical sciences, including experimental investigations with clear clinical relevance, original clinical studies and review articles.
×
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