Are Treatment Services Ready for the Use of Big Data Analytics and AI in Managing Opioid Use Disorder? (Preprint)
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.2196/58723 · Paper page
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED: In this viewpoint, we explore the use of big data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) and discuss important challenges to their ethical, effective, and equitable use within opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment settings. Applying our collective experiences as OUD policy and treatment experts, we discuss 8 key challenges that OUD treatment services must contend with to make the most of these rapidly evolving technologies: data and algorithmic transparency, clinical validation, new practitioner-technology interfaces, capturing data relevant to improving patient care, understanding and responding to algorithmic outputs, obtaining informed patient consent, navigating mistrust, and addressing digital exclusion and bias. Through this paper, we hope to critically engage clinicians and policy makers on important ethical considerations, clinical implications, and implementation challenges involved in big data analytics and AI deployment in OUD treatment settings.
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
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.
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
Anthony, C. A., Rojas, E. O., Keffala, V., Glass, N. A., Shah, A. S., Miller, B. J., Hogue, M., Willey, M. C., Karam, M., & Marsh, J. L. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.17750 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Amer, M., Gittins, R., Millana, A. M., Scheibein, F., Ferri, M., Tofighi, B., Sullivan, F., Handley, M., Ghosh, M., Baldacchino, A., & Tay Wee Teck, J.
- Affiliations
- University of St Andrews (GB)
- Aston University (GB)
- South East Technological University (IE)
- European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (PT)
- Friends Research Institute (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Amer, Matthew
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2024-03-22
- Volume
- 27
- Pages
- e58723-e58723
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12070021
- OpenAlex
- W4404450662
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- opioid use disorder, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, algorithmic transparency, clinical validation, informed consent, algorithmic bias, digital exclusion, patient trust, AI ethics, health equity
- MeSH terms
- Big Data, Data Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Opioid-Related Disorders
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
