%0期刊文章@ 1438-8871 %I JMIR出版物%V 22% 卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析N 1% P e146779 %T患者对人工智能辅助症状检查器有用性的看法:横断面调查研究Meyer,Ashley N D A Giardina,Traber D A Spitzmueller,Christiane Shahid,Umber Scott,Taylor M T A Singh,Hardeep质量、有效性和安全创新中心，Michael E DeBakey退伍军人事务医疗中心和贝勒医学院，2002 Holcombe大道152号，德克萨斯州休斯顿，17134404660，ameyer@bcm.edu %K临床决策支持系统%K技术%K诊断%K患者安全%K症状检查器%K计算机辅助诊断%D 2020 %7 30.1.2020 %9原始论文%J J医学Internet Res %G英文%X背景:患者越来越多地寻求基于web的症状检查器来获得诊断。然而，对于使用这些资源的患者的特征、他们使用这些资源的理由以及他们是否认为这些资源是准确和有用的，我们知之甚少。目的:本研究旨在使用人工智能(AI)辅助的在线症状检查器来检查患者的体验。方法:在2018年3月2日至2018年3月15日期间，对使用伊莎贝尔症状检查器6个月内的美国用户进行了在线调查。收集用户特征、使用症状检查器的经验、与医生讨论结果的经验以及之前经历诊断错误的个人历史。结果:共获得329个可用响应。平均年龄48.0岁(标准差16.7岁);大多数为女性(230/304,75.7%)和白人(271/304,89.1%)。 Patients most commonly used the symptom checker to better understand the causes of their symptoms (232/304, 76.3%), followed by for deciding whether to seek care (101/304, 33.2%) or where (eg, primary or urgent care: 63/304, 20.7%), obtaining medical advice without going to a doctor (48/304, 15.8%), and understanding their diagnoses better (39/304, 12.8%). Most patients reported receiving useful information for their health problems (274/304, 90.1%), with half reporting positive health effects (154/302, 51.0%). Most patients perceived it to be useful as a diagnostic tool (253/301, 84.1%), as a tool providing insights leading them closer to correct diagnoses (231/303, 76.2%), and reported they would use it again (278/304, 91.4%). Patients who discussed findings with their physicians (103/213, 48.4%) more often felt physicians were interested (42/103, 40.8%) than not interested in learning about the tool’s results (24/103, 23.3%) and more often felt physicians were open (62/103, 60.2%) than not open (21/103, 20.4%) to discussing the results. Compared with patients who had not previously experienced diagnostic errors (missed or delayed diagnoses: 123/304, 40.5%), patients who had previously experienced diagnostic errors (181/304, 59.5%) were more likely to use the symptom checker to determine where they should seek care (15/123, 12.2% vs 48/181, 26.5%; P=.002), but they less often felt that physicians were interested in discussing the tool’s results (20/34, 59% vs 22/69, 32%; P=.04). Conclusions: Despite ongoing concerns about symptom checker accuracy, a large patient-user group perceived an AI-assisted symptom checker as useful for diagnosis. Formal validation studies evaluating symptom checker accuracy and effectiveness in real-world practice could provide additional useful information about their benefit. %M 32012052 %R 10.2196/14679 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2020/1/e14679/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/14679 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32012052