评估人工智能平台作为机构审查委员会成员的决策能力。

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1177/15562646241263200
Kannan Sridharan, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
{"title":"评估人工智能平台作为机构审查委员会成员的决策能力。","authors":"Kannan Sridharan, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan","doi":"10.1177/15562646241263200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Institutional review boards (IRBs) face delays in reviewing research proposals, underscoring the need for optimized standard operating procedures (SOPs). This study assesses the abilities of three artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to address IRB challenges and draft essential SOPs. <b>Methods:</b> An observational study was conducted using three AI platforms in 10 case studies reflecting IRB functions, focusing on creating SOPs. The accuracy of the AI outputs was assessed against good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines. <b>Results:</b> The AI tools identified GCP issues, offered guidance on GCP violations, detected conflicts of interest and SOP deficiencies, recognized vulnerable populations, and suggested expedited review criteria. They also drafted SOPs with some differences. <b>Conclusion:</b> AI platforms could aid IRB decision-making and improve review efficiency. However, human oversight remains critical for ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"83-91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members.\",\"authors\":\"Kannan Sridharan, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646241263200\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Institutional review boards (IRBs) face delays in reviewing research proposals, underscoring the need for optimized standard operating procedures (SOPs). This study assesses the abilities of three artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to address IRB challenges and draft essential SOPs. <b>Methods:</b> An observational study was conducted using three AI platforms in 10 case studies reflecting IRB functions, focusing on creating SOPs. The accuracy of the AI outputs was assessed against good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines. <b>Results:</b> The AI tools identified GCP issues, offered guidance on GCP violations, detected conflicts of interest and SOP deficiencies, recognized vulnerable populations, and suggested expedited review criteria. They also drafted SOPs with some differences. <b>Conclusion:</b> AI platforms could aid IRB decision-making and improve review efficiency. However, human oversight remains critical for ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated solutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"83-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241263200\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241263200","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机构审查委员会(IRB)在审查研究提案时面临延误,这突出表明需要优化标准操作程序(SOP)。本研究评估了三种人工智能(AI)平台应对 IRB 挑战和起草基本 SOP 的能力。研究方法在 10 个反映 IRB 功能的案例研究中使用三种人工智能平台进行了观察研究,重点是创建 SOP。根据良好临床实践 (GCP) 指南对人工智能输出的准确性进行了评估。结果显示人工智能工具识别了 GCP 问题,为违反 GCP 的行为提供了指导,发现了利益冲突和 SOP 缺陷,识别了弱势人群,并提出了快速审查标准。它们起草的 SOP 也存在一些差异。结论人工智能平台可以帮助 IRB 决策并提高审查效率。然而,要确保人工智能生成的解决方案的准确性,人工监督仍然至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing the Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members.

Background: Institutional review boards (IRBs) face delays in reviewing research proposals, underscoring the need for optimized standard operating procedures (SOPs). This study assesses the abilities of three artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to address IRB challenges and draft essential SOPs. Methods: An observational study was conducted using three AI platforms in 10 case studies reflecting IRB functions, focusing on creating SOPs. The accuracy of the AI outputs was assessed against good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines. Results: The AI tools identified GCP issues, offered guidance on GCP violations, detected conflicts of interest and SOP deficiencies, recognized vulnerable populations, and suggested expedited review criteria. They also drafted SOPs with some differences. Conclusion: AI platforms could aid IRB decision-making and improve review efficiency. However, human oversight remains critical for ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated solutions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics. Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1