• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Progress in Artificial Intelligence >Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review
【24h】

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review

机译：健康与医学研究众群：系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Crowdsourcing is used increasingly in health and medical research. Crowdsourcing is the process of aggregating crowd wisdom to solve a problem. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize quantitative evidence on crowdsourcing to improve health. Methods We followed Cochrane systematic review guidance and systematically searched seven databases up to September 4th 2019. Studies were included if they reported on crowdsourcing and related to health or medicine. Studies were excluded if recruitment was the only use of crowdsourcing. We determined the level of evidence associated with review findings using the GRADE approach. Results We screened 3508 citations, accessed 362 articles, and included 188 studies. Ninety-six studies examined effectiveness, 127 examined feasibility, and 37 examined cost. The most common purposes were to evaluate surgical skills (17 studies), to create sexual health messages (seven studies), and to provide layperson cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) out-of-hospital (six studies). Seventeen observational studies used crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills, finding that crowdsourcing evaluation was as effective as expert evaluation (low quality). Four studies used a challenge contest to solicit human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing promotion materials and increase HIV testing rates (moderate quality), and two of the four studies found this approach saved money. Three studies suggested that an interactive technology system increased rates of layperson initiated CPR out-of-hospital (moderate quality). However, studies analyzing crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills and layperson-initiated CPR were only from high-income countries. Five studies examined crowdsourcing to inform artificial intelligence projects, most often related to annotation of medical data. Crowdsourcing was evaluated using different outcomes, limiting the extent to which studies could be pooled. Conclusions Crowdsourcing has been used to improve health in many settings. Although crowdsourcing is effective at improving behavioral outcomes, more research is needed to understand effects on clinical outcomes and costs. More research is needed on crowdsourcing as a tool to develop artificial intelligence systems in medicine.
机译：背景覆盖在健康和医学研究中越来越多地使用。众包是聚合人群智慧来解决问题的过程。该系统审查的目的是总结有关众包以改善健康的定量证据。方法遵循Cochrane系统审查指导，并系统地搜索了七个数据库，高达2019年9月4日。如果他们报告众包并与健康或医学相关，则包括研究。如果招聘是唯一使用众包，则排除了研究。我们确定了使用等级方法与审查结果相关的证据水平。结果我们筛选了3508个引文，访问了362篇文章，包括188项研究。 96项研究检测有效性，127次检查可行性和37项检查成本。最常见的目的是评估手术技能（17项研究），以营造性健康信息（七项研究），并提供除别医院外科（CPR）的外科肌肉 - 肺部复苏（六项研究）。 17个观察性研究使用众包来评估手术技能，发现众包评估与专家评估（低质量）有效。四项研究用来征求挑战案征求人类免疫缺陷病毒（HIV）检测促进材料，增加艾滋病毒检测率（中等品质），并发现这两项研究发现了这种方法保存了金钱。三项研究表明，互动技术系统提高了劳兹森率，启动了CPR医院（适度质量）。然而，分析众所周知的研究以评估手术技能和劳兹龙的CPR仅来自高收入国家。五项研究审查了众包通知人工智能项目，最常见于医疗数据的注释。使用不同的结果评估众包，限制了可以汇集研究的程度。结论众包已被用来在许多环境中改善健康。虽然众包在提高行为结果方面有效，但需要更多的研究来了解对临床结果和成本的影响。在众包中需要更多的研究作为在医学中开发人工智能系统的工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号