The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
To warrant clinical adoption AI models require a multi-faceted implementation evaluation
Abstract
Despite artificial intelligence (AI) technology progresses at unprecedented rate, our ability to translate these advancements into clinical value and adoption at the bedside remains comparatively limited. This paper reviews the current use of implementation outcomes in randomized controlled trials evaluating AI-based clinical decision support and found limited adoption. To advance trust and clinical adoption of AI, there is a need to bridge the gap between traditional quantitative metrics and implementation outcomes to better grasp the reasons behind the success or failure of AI systems and improve their translation into clinical value.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“We were particularly interested in empirical studies with AI in the healthcare domain because of the need for human-subjects research in AI's development cycle and the importance of aligning algorithms with user needs and clinical workflows (Chen et al., 2022;van de Sande et al., 2024).”
From Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as van de Sande et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Curran, G. M., Bauer, M., Mittman, B., Pyne, J. M., & Stetler, C. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182408812 · Cited by 4,058
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · cited 1×
“It is our moral obligation to ensure trustworthy and responsible adoption of AI in healthcare 12 .”
Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862 · Cited by 1,871
Liu, X., Cruz Rivera, S., Moher, D., Calvert, M. J., Denniston, A. K., The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Steering Group, Chan, A.-W., Darzi, A., Holmes, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x · Cited by 1,421
Vasey, B., Nagendran, M., Campbell, B., Clifton, D. A., Collins, G. S., Denaxas, S., Denniston, A. K., Faes, L., Geerts, B., Ibrahim, M., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9 · Cited by 1,039
Lambert, S. I., Madi, M., Sopka, S., Lenes, A., Stange, H., Buszello, C.-P., & Stephan, A. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00852-5 · Cited by 404
van de Sande, D., van Genderen, M. E., Huiskens, J., Gommers, D., & van Bommel, J. (2021) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06446-7 · Cited by 279
Self-citationRandomized Clinical Trials of Machine Learning Interventions in Health Care: A Systematic Review
Plana, D., Shung, D. L., Grimshaw, A. A., Saraf, A., Sung, J. J. Y., & Kann, B. H. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.33946 · Cited by 236
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Komorowski, M., Celi, L. A., Badawi, O., Gordon, A. C. & Faisal, A. A. The Artificial Intelligence Clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat. Med. 24, 1716–1720 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
- Al-Zaiti, S. S. et al. Machine learning for ECG diagnosis and risk stratification of occlusion myocardial infarction. Nat. Med. 29, 1804–1813 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
- Hariton, E. & Locascio, J. J. Randomised controlled trials—the gold standard for effectiveness research: Study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG 125, 1716 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. & Davis, F. D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Quart. 27, 425–478 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Gomez, C., Cho, S. M., Ke, S., Huang, C.-M., & Unberath, M. (2025) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2024.1521066 · Cited by 209
Berkhout, W. E. M., van Wijngaarden, J. J., Workum, J. D., van de Sande, D., Hilling, D. E., Jung, C., Meyfroidt, G., Gommers, D., Buijsman, S. N. R., & van Genderen, M. E. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.22866 · Cited by 75
Self-citationA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools
Patel, H., Crusco, S., Hansen, D., Morales, J., Patale, T., Chiuzan, C., Sands, M., Naidich, J., Myers, K., Davidson, K. W., et al. (2026) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-026-10381-y · Cited by 4
Pranata, Y., Mirwanti, R., Bahtiar, Y. A., & Purwanti, H. (2026) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s621469 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- van de Sande, D., Chung, E. F. F., Oosterhoff, J., van Bommel, J., Gommers, D., & van Genderen, M. E.
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2024-03-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2398-6352
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 13
- Language
- en
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (vor)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: To warrant clinical adoption AI models require a multi-faceted implementation evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41746-024-01064-1
- The paper
- van de Sande, D., Chung, E. F. F., Oosterhoff, J., van Bommel, J., Gommers, D., & van Genderen, M. E. (2024). To warrant clinical adoption AI models require a multi-faceted implementation evaluation. npj Digital Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01064-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
