Cited by 113Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records SystemsTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Recent advances of HCI in decision-making tasks for optimized clinical workflows and precision medicine

Open access
Rundo, Leonardo, Pirrone, Roberto, Vitabile, Salvatore, Sala, Evis, Gambino, Orazio·2020·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

The ever-increasing amount of biomedical data is enabling new large-scale studies, even though ad hoc computational solutions are required. The most recent Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques have been achieving outstanding performance and an important impact in clinical research, aiming at precision medicine, as well as improving healthcare workflows. However, the inherent heterogeneity and uncertainty in the healthcare information sources pose new compelling challenges for clinicians in their decision-making tasks. Only the proper combination of AI and human intelligence capabilities, by explicitly taking into account effective and safe interaction paradigms, can permit the delivery of care that outperforms what either can do separately. Therefore, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) plays a crucial role in the design of software oriented to decision-making in medicine. In this work, we systematically review and discuss several research fields strictly linked to HCI and clinical decision-making, by subdividing the articles into six themes, namely: Interfaces, Visualization, Electronic Health Records, Devices, Usability, and Clinical Decision Support Systems. However, these articles typically present overlaps among the themes, revealing that HCI inter-connects multiple topics. With the goal of focusing on HCI and design aspects, the articles under consideration were grouped into four clusters. The advances in AI can effectively support the physicians' cognitive processes, which certainly play a central role in decision-making tasks because the human mental behavior cannot be completely emulated and captured; the human mind might solve a complex problem even without a statistically significant amount of data by relying upon domain knowledge. For this reason, technology must focus on interactive solutions for supporting the physicians effectively in their daily activities, by exploiting their unique knowledge and evidence-based reasoning, as well as improving the various aspects highlighted in this review.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103479

Cites

137 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rundo, L., Pirrone, R., Vitabile, S., Sala, E., & Gambino, O.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Palermo (IT)
Corresponding author
Gambino, Orazio
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
108
Pages
103479
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3036614995
Cited by
113
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Mark Foundation For Cancer Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
human-computer interaction, clinical decision-making, clinical decision support systems, precision medicine, clinical workflow, electronic health records, visualization, usability, medical devices, evidence-based reasoning, AI-assisted decision support
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Computers, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Workflow, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review