Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(279 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig3 Husen DataSciJourn2017 16-1.png|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap|Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study|Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study]]"'''


Researchers are increasingly required to make research data publicly available in data repositories. Although several organizations propose criteria to recommend and evaluate the quality of data repositories, there is no consensus of what constitutes a good data repository. In this paper, we investigate, first, which data repositories are recommended by various stakeholders (publishers, funders, and community organizations) and second, which repositories are certified by a number of organizations. We then compare these two lists of repositories, and the criteria for recommendation and certification. We find that criteria used by organizations recommending and certifying repositories are similar, although the certification criteria are generally more detailed. We distill the lists of criteria into seven main categories: “Mission,” “Community/Recognition,” “Legal and Contractual Compliance,” “Access/Accessibility,” “Technical Structure/Interface,” “Retrievability,” and “Preservation.” Although the criteria are similar, the lists of repositories that are recommended by the various agencies are very different. Out of all of the recommended repositories, less than six percent obtained certification. As certification is becoming more important, steps should be taken to decrease this gap between recommended and certified repositories, and ensure that certification standards become applicable, and applied, to the repositories which researchers are currently using. ('''[[Journal:Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap|Full article...]]''')<br />
This qualitative study aims to present the aspirations, expectations, and critical analysis of the potential for [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) to transform the patient–physician relationship, according to multi-stakeholder insight. This study was conducted from June to December 2021, using an anticipatory ethics approach and sociology of expectations as the theoretical frameworks. It focused mainly on three groups of stakeholders, namely physicians (''n'' = 12), patients (''n'' = 15), and healthcare managers (''n'' = 11), all of whom are directly related to the adoption of AI in medicine (''n'' = 38). In this study, interviews were conducted with 40% of the patients in the sample (15/38), as well as 31% of the physicians (12/38) and 29% of health managers in the sample (11/38) ... ('''[[Journal:Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'':  
{{flowlist |
: ▪ [[Journal:Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems|Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems]]
* [[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute|Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research|Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research]]
* [[Journal:Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study|Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study]]
}}

Latest revision as of 15:48, 26 May 2024

Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg

"Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study"

This qualitative study aims to present the aspirations, expectations, and critical analysis of the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to transform the patient–physician relationship, according to multi-stakeholder insight. This study was conducted from June to December 2021, using an anticipatory ethics approach and sociology of expectations as the theoretical frameworks. It focused mainly on three groups of stakeholders, namely physicians (n = 12), patients (n = 15), and healthcare managers (n = 11), all of whom are directly related to the adoption of AI in medicine (n = 38). In this study, interviews were conducted with 40% of the patients in the sample (15/38), as well as 31% of the physicians (12/38) and 29% of health managers in the sample (11/38) ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63766"