Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Mar 16, 2022
Date Accepted: Jul 11, 2022

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

What Works Where and How for Uptake and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology: Review of Theories for a Realist Evaluation

King H, Wright J, Treanor D, Williams B, Randell R

What Works Where and How for Uptake and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology: Review of Theories for a Realist Evaluation

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e38039

DOI: 10.2196/38039

PMID: 37093631

PMCID: 10167589

What works where and how for uptake and impact of artificial intelligence in pathology: A review of theories for a realist evaluation

  • Henry King; 
  • Judy Wright; 
  • Darren Treanor; 
  • Bethany Williams; 
  • Rebecca Randell

ABSTRACT

Background:

There is increasing interest in use of artificial intelligence in pathology to increase accuracy and efficiency. To date, studies of clinicians’ perceptions of artificial intelligence have found only moderate acceptability, suggesting the need for further research regarding how to integrate it into clinical practice.

Objective:

To determine contextual factors that may support or constrain the uptake of artificial intelligence in pathology.

Methods:

To go beyond a simple listing of barriers and facilitators, we drew on the approach of realist evaluation and undertook a review of the literature to elicit stakeholders’ theories of how, for whom, and in what circumstances artificial intelligence can provide benefit in pathology. Searches were run on the arXiv.org repository, MEDLINE, and the Health Management Information Consortium, with additional searches undertaken on a range of websites to identify grey literature. In line with a realist approach, we also made use of relevant theory.

Results:

One hundred and one relevant documents were identified. Our analysis indicates that the benefits that can be achieved will vary according to the size and nature of the pathology department’s workload and the extent to which pathologists work collaboratively; the major perceived benefit for specialist centres is in reducing workload. For uptake of artificial intelligence, pathologist trust is essential. Existing theories suggest that if pathologists are able to ‘make sense’ of AI, engaged in the adoption process, supported in adapting their work processes, and can identify potential benefits to its introduction, it is more likely to be accepted.

Conclusions:

For uptake of artificial intelligence in pathology, for all but the most simple quantitative tasks, measures will be required that either increase confidence in the system or provide users with an understanding of the performance of the system. For specialist centres, efforts should focus on reducing workload, rather than increasing accuracy. Designers also need to give careful thought to usability and how AI is integrated into pathologists’ workflow.


 Citation

Please cite as:

King H, Wright J, Treanor D, Williams B, Randell R

What Works Where and How for Uptake and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology: Review of Theories for a Realist Evaluation

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e38039

DOI: 10.2196/38039

PMID: 37093631

PMCID: 10167589

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.