Search

The amount of grey literature and 'softer' intelligence from social media or websites is vast. Given the long lead‐times of producing high‐quality peer‐reviewed health information, this is causing a demand for new ways to provide prompt input for secondary research. To our knowledge, this is the first review of automated data extraction methods or tools for health‐related grey literature and soft data, with a focus on (semi)automating horizon scans, health technology assessments (HTA), evidence maps, or other literature reviews. We searched six databases to cover both health‐ and computer‐science literature. After deduplication, 10% of the search results were screened by two reviewers, the remainder was single‐screened up to an estimated 95% sensitivity; screening was stopped early after screening an additional 1000 results with no new includes. All full texts were retrieved, screened, and extracted by a single reviewer and 10% were checked in duplicate. We included 84 papers covering automation for health‐related social media, internet fora, news, patents, government agencies and charities, or trial registers. From each paper, we extracted data about important functionalities for users of the tool or method; information about the level of support and reliability; and about practical challenges and research gaps. Poor availability of code, data, and usable tools leads to low transparency regarding performance and duplication of work. Financial implications, scalability, integration into downstream workflows, and meaningful evaluations should be carefully planned before starting to develop a tool, given the vast amounts of data and opportunities those tools offer to expedite research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology is being developed to support the peer review processes of journals, conferences, funders, universities, and national research evaluations. This literature and software summary discusses the partial or complete automation of several publishing‐related tasks: suggesting appropriate journals for an article, providing quality control for submitted papers, finding suitable reviewers for submitted papers or grant proposals, reviewing, and review evaluation. It also discusses attempts to estimate article quality from peer review text and scores as well as from post‐publication scores but not from bibliometric data. The literature and existing examples of working technology show that automation is useful for helping to find reviewers and there is good evidence that it can sometimes help with initial quality control of submitted manuscripts. Much other software supporting publishing and editorial work exists and is being used, but without published academic evaluations of its efficacy. The value of artificial intelligence (AI) to support reviewing has not been clearly demonstrated yet, however. Finally, whilst peer review text and scores can theoretically have value for post‐publication research assessment, it is not yet widely enough available to be a practical evidence source for systematic automation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As full AI‐based automation remains out of reach in most real‐world applications, the focus has instead shifted to leveraging the strengths of both human and AI agents, creating effective collaborative systems. The rapid advances in this area have yielded increasingly more complex systems and frameworks, while the nuance of their characterization has gotten more vague. Similarly, the existing conceptual models no longer capture the elaborate processes of these systems nor describe the entire scope of their collaboration paradigms. In this paper, we propose a new unified set of dimensions through which to analyze and describe human‐AI systems. Our conceptual model is centered around three high‐level aspects ‐ agency, interaction, and adaptation ‐ and is developed through a multi‐step process. Firstly, an initial design space is proposed by surveying the literature and consolidating existing definitions and conceptual frameworks. Secondly, this model is iteratively refined and validated by conducting semi‐structured interviews with nine researchers in this field. Lastly, to illustrate the applicability of our design space, we utilize it to provide a structured description of selected human‐AI systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growing use of artificial intelligence, search engine providers are increasingly pushing advertisers to use automated bidding strategies based on machine learning. Such automated decision‐making systems leave advertisers in the dark about the data being used and how they can influence the outcome of the decision‐making process. Previous literature on artificial intelligence lacks an understanding of the dangers related to artificially intelligent systems and their lack of transparency. In response, our paper addresses the inherent risks of the automated optimization of advertisers' bidding strategies in search engine advertising. The selected empirical case of a service company therefore demonstrates how data availability can trigger a long‐term decline in advertising performance and how search engine advertising performance metrics develop before and after an event of data scarcity. Based on data collected for 525 days, difference‐in‐differences analysis shows that the algorithmic approach has a considerable and lasting negative impact on advertising performance. Furthermore, the empirical case indicates that self‐regulated learning can initialize a downward spiral that gradually impairs advertising performance. Thus, the aim of this study is to increase awareness regarding automated decision‐making dangers in search engine advertising and help advertisers take preventive measures to reduce the risks of algorithm missteps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever‐growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi‐society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]