Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Recommended practices and ethical considerations for natural language processing‐assisted observational research: A scoping review
21
Zitationen
11
Autoren
2022
Jahr
Abstract
An increasing number of studies have reported using natural language processing (NLP) to assist observational research by extracting clinical information from electronic health records (EHRs). Currently, no standardized reporting guidelines for NLP-assisted observational studies exist. The absence of detailed reporting guidelines may create ambiguity in the use of NLP-derived content, knowledge gaps in the current research reporting practices, and reproducibility challenges. To address these issues, we conducted a scoping review of NLP-assisted observational clinical studies and examined their reporting practices, focusing on NLP methodology and evaluation. Through our investigation, we discovered a high variation regarding the reporting practices, such as inconsistent use of references for measurement studies, variation in the reporting location (reference, appendix, and manuscript), and different granularity of NLP methodology and evaluation details. To promote the wide adoption and utilization of NLP solutions in clinical research, we outline several perspectives that align with the six principles released by the World Health Organization (WHO) that guide the ethical use of artificial intelligence for health.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.200 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.051 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.416 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.776 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.410 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- Mayo Clinic in Florida(US)
- Mayo Clinic(US)
- Genomic Health (United States)(US)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai(US)
- Mount Sinai Health System(US)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information(US)
- University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus(US)
- Johns Hopkins Medicine(US)
- Johns Hopkins University(US)