精神卫生保健中人工智能驱动的报告生成工具:对商业工具的回顾

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Ayoub Bouguettaya , Victoria Team , Elizabeth M. Stuart , Elias Aboujaoude
{"title":"精神卫生保健中人工智能驱动的报告生成工具:对商业工具的回顾","authors":"Ayoub Bouguettaya ,&nbsp;Victoria Team ,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Stuart ,&nbsp;Elias Aboujaoude","doi":"10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2025.02.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being integrated in clinical care, including for AI-powered note-writing. We aimed to develop and apply a scale for assessing mental health electronic health records (EHRs) that use large language models (LLMs) for note-writing, focusing on their features, security, and ethics. The assessment involved analyzing product information and directly querying vendors about their systems. On their websites, the majority of vendors provided comprehensive information on data protection, privacy measures, multi-platform availability, patient access features, software update history, and Meaningful Use compliance. Most products clearly indicated the LLM's capabilities in creating customized reports or functioning as a co-pilot. However, critical information was often absent, including details on LLM training methodologies, the specific LLM used, bias correction techniques, and methods for evaluating the evidence base. The lack of transparency regarding LLM specifics and bias mitigation strategies raises concerns about the ethical implementation and reliability of these systems in clinical practice. While LLM-enhanced EHRs show promise in alleviating the documentation burden for mental health professionals, there is a pressing need for greater transparency and standardization in reporting LLM-related information. We propose recommendations for the future development and implementation of these systems to ensure they meet the highest standards of security, ethics, and clinical care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12517,"journal":{"name":"General hospital psychiatry","volume":"94 ","pages":"Pages 150-158"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI-driven report-generation tools in mental healthcare: A review of commercial tools\",\"authors\":\"Ayoub Bouguettaya ,&nbsp;Victoria Team ,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Stuart ,&nbsp;Elias Aboujaoude\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2025.02.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being integrated in clinical care, including for AI-powered note-writing. We aimed to develop and apply a scale for assessing mental health electronic health records (EHRs) that use large language models (LLMs) for note-writing, focusing on their features, security, and ethics. The assessment involved analyzing product information and directly querying vendors about their systems. On their websites, the majority of vendors provided comprehensive information on data protection, privacy measures, multi-platform availability, patient access features, software update history, and Meaningful Use compliance. Most products clearly indicated the LLM's capabilities in creating customized reports or functioning as a co-pilot. However, critical information was often absent, including details on LLM training methodologies, the specific LLM used, bias correction techniques, and methods for evaluating the evidence base. The lack of transparency regarding LLM specifics and bias mitigation strategies raises concerns about the ethical implementation and reliability of these systems in clinical practice. While LLM-enhanced EHRs show promise in alleviating the documentation burden for mental health professionals, there is a pressing need for greater transparency and standardization in reporting LLM-related information. We propose recommendations for the future development and implementation of these systems to ensure they meet the highest standards of security, ethics, and clinical care.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"General hospital psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 150-158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"General hospital psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834325000489\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General hospital psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834325000489","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)系统越来越多地集成到临床护理中,包括人工智能手写笔记。我们的目标是开发和应用一个评估心理健康的量表,电子健康记录(EHRs)使用大型语言模型(llm)进行笔记写作,重点关注其特征、安全性和伦理。评估包括分析产品信息和直接查询供应商的系统。在他们的网站上,大多数供应商提供了关于数据保护、隐私措施、多平台可用性、患者访问功能、软件更新历史和有意义使用合规的全面信息。大多数产品都清楚地表明LLM在创建定制报告或充当副驾驶员方面的能力。然而,关键信息经常缺失,包括法学硕士培训方法的细节,所使用的具体法学硕士,偏差校正技术和评估证据基础的方法。法学硕士具体细节和减轻偏见策略缺乏透明度,引起了人们对这些系统在临床实践中的伦理实施和可靠性的担忧。虽然法学硕士增强的电子病历有望减轻心理健康专业人员的文件负担,但在报告法学硕士相关信息方面,迫切需要更大的透明度和标准化。我们对这些系统的未来发展和实施提出建议,以确保它们符合安全、道德和临床护理的最高标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AI-driven report-generation tools in mental healthcare: A review of commercial tools
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being integrated in clinical care, including for AI-powered note-writing. We aimed to develop and apply a scale for assessing mental health electronic health records (EHRs) that use large language models (LLMs) for note-writing, focusing on their features, security, and ethics. The assessment involved analyzing product information and directly querying vendors about their systems. On their websites, the majority of vendors provided comprehensive information on data protection, privacy measures, multi-platform availability, patient access features, software update history, and Meaningful Use compliance. Most products clearly indicated the LLM's capabilities in creating customized reports or functioning as a co-pilot. However, critical information was often absent, including details on LLM training methodologies, the specific LLM used, bias correction techniques, and methods for evaluating the evidence base. The lack of transparency regarding LLM specifics and bias mitigation strategies raises concerns about the ethical implementation and reliability of these systems in clinical practice. While LLM-enhanced EHRs show promise in alleviating the documentation burden for mental health professionals, there is a pressing need for greater transparency and standardization in reporting LLM-related information. We propose recommendations for the future development and implementation of these systems to ensure they meet the highest standards of security, ethics, and clinical care.
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
General hospital psychiatry
General hospital psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
125
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: General Hospital Psychiatry explores the many linkages among psychiatry, medicine, and primary care. In emphasizing a biopsychosocial approach to illness and health, the journal provides a forum for professionals with clinical, academic, and research interests in psychiatry''s role in the mainstream of medicine.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信