系统文献综述中的人工智能:社会工作伦理、应用与可行性。

IF 1.4
Robert Lucio, Amy Harris, Johanna Creswell Báez, Michael Campbell, Lauren A Ricciardelli
{"title":"系统文献综述中的人工智能:社会工作伦理、应用与可行性。","authors":"Robert Lucio, Amy Harris, Johanna Creswell Báez, Michael Campbell, Lauren A Ricciardelli","doi":"10.1080/26408066.2025.2548853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study explores the alignment between themes identified by Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered tools and those from a traditional, manual scoping review, focusing on generative AI's role in streamlining time-intensive research processes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thematic findings from a human-driven scoping review on peer support specialists in medical settings for opioid use disorder (OUD) were compared with outputs from NotebookLM, UTVERSE, and Gemini. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were uploaded to each AI tool, and a standardized prompt directed the generative AI to identify themes using only the provided articles, which were then compared to the human-coded findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AI models identified between 53% and 80% of the themes found in the original manual analysis. While AI tools identified novel themes that could broaden the scope of analysis, they also generated inaccurate or misleading themes and overlooked others entirely.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The variability in generative AI performance highlights its potential and limitations in thematic analysis. AI identified additional themes and misinterpreted or missed others. Human expert review remains necessary to validate the accuracy and relevance of generative AI, while addressing ethical considerations in alignment with the values of the social work profession.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A hybrid approach that combines generative AI with expert review has the potential to support current manual research approaches and establish a robust methodology. Continued evaluation, addressing limitations, and establishing best practices for human-AI collaboration and transparent reporting are crucial for the social work research field.</p>","PeriodicalId":73742,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial Intelligence in Systematic Literature Reviews: Social Work Ethics, Application, and Feasibility.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Lucio, Amy Harris, Johanna Creswell Báez, Michael Campbell, Lauren A Ricciardelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26408066.2025.2548853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study explores the alignment between themes identified by Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered tools and those from a traditional, manual scoping review, focusing on generative AI's role in streamlining time-intensive research processes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thematic findings from a human-driven scoping review on peer support specialists in medical settings for opioid use disorder (OUD) were compared with outputs from NotebookLM, UTVERSE, and Gemini. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were uploaded to each AI tool, and a standardized prompt directed the generative AI to identify themes using only the provided articles, which were then compared to the human-coded findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AI models identified between 53% and 80% of the themes found in the original manual analysis. While AI tools identified novel themes that could broaden the scope of analysis, they also generated inaccurate or misleading themes and overlooked others entirely.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The variability in generative AI performance highlights its potential and limitations in thematic analysis. AI identified additional themes and misinterpreted or missed others. Human expert review remains necessary to validate the accuracy and relevance of generative AI, while addressing ethical considerations in alignment with the values of the social work profession.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A hybrid approach that combines generative AI with expert review has the potential to support current manual research approaches and establish a robust methodology. Continued evaluation, addressing limitations, and establishing best practices for human-AI collaboration and transparent reporting are crucial for the social work research field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2025.2548853\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2025.2548853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究探讨由人工智能(AI)驱动的工具确定的主题与传统的手动范围审查确定的主题之间的一致性,重点关注生成人工智能在简化时间密集型研究过程中的作用。材料和方法:对医疗环境中阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)的同伴支持专家进行的以人为驱动的范围审查的主题发现与NotebookLM、UTVERSE和Gemini的输出进行了比较。15篇同行评议的文章被上传到每个人工智能工具上,一个标准化的提示指示生成式人工智能仅使用提供的文章来识别主题,然后将这些文章与人类编码的发现进行比较。结果:人工智能模型识别了原始手工分析中发现的53%至80%的主题。虽然人工智能工具确定了可以扩大分析范围的新主题,但它们也产生了不准确或误导性的主题,并完全忽略了其他主题。讨论:生成AI表现的可变性突出了其在主题分析中的潜力和局限性。人工智能识别了其他主题,并误解或遗漏了其他主题。为了验证生成式人工智能的准确性和相关性,同时根据社会工作专业的价值观解决道德问题,人类专家的审查仍然是必要的。结论:将生成式人工智能与专家评审相结合的混合方法有可能支持当前的人工研究方法,并建立一个强大的方法。持续评估、解决局限性、建立人类与人工智能协作的最佳实践和透明报告对社会工作研究领域至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial Intelligence in Systematic Literature Reviews: Social Work Ethics, Application, and Feasibility.

Purpose: This study explores the alignment between themes identified by Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered tools and those from a traditional, manual scoping review, focusing on generative AI's role in streamlining time-intensive research processes.

Materials and methods: Thematic findings from a human-driven scoping review on peer support specialists in medical settings for opioid use disorder (OUD) were compared with outputs from NotebookLM, UTVERSE, and Gemini. Fifteen peer-reviewed articles were uploaded to each AI tool, and a standardized prompt directed the generative AI to identify themes using only the provided articles, which were then compared to the human-coded findings.

Results: The AI models identified between 53% and 80% of the themes found in the original manual analysis. While AI tools identified novel themes that could broaden the scope of analysis, they also generated inaccurate or misleading themes and overlooked others entirely.

Discussion: The variability in generative AI performance highlights its potential and limitations in thematic analysis. AI identified additional themes and misinterpreted or missed others. Human expert review remains necessary to validate the accuracy and relevance of generative AI, while addressing ethical considerations in alignment with the values of the social work profession.

Conclusion: A hybrid approach that combines generative AI with expert review has the potential to support current manual research approaches and establish a robust methodology. Continued evaluation, addressing limitations, and establishing best practices for human-AI collaboration and transparent reporting are crucial for the social work research field.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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