Straus, S. E., Pattani, R. & Veroniki, A. A. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (Elsevier, Edinburgh, 2019).
Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. & Crump, R. T. Decision support for patients: values clarification and preference elicitation. Med. Care Res. Rev. 70, 50S–79S (2013).
Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Patient preference information—voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2020).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Benefit-risk assessment for new drug and biological products. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2024).
Benz, H. L., Saha, A. & Tarver, M. E. Integrating the voice of the patient into the medical device regulatory process using patient preference information. Value Health 23, 294–297 (2020).
Google Scholar
European Medicines Agency. Regulatory science strategy. European Medicines Agency (2020).
Erstad, B. L. Philosophical and ethical underpinnings of the medical decision-making process: a focus on patient values and preferences. Ann. Pharmacother. 59, 666–670 (2024).
Google Scholar
Chen, M., Guan, Q. & Zhuang, J. Patient-centered lean healthcare management from a humanistic perspective. BMC Health Serv. Res. 24, 1261 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bridges, J. F. P. et al. A roadmap for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making in health: A good practices report of an ISPOR task force. Value Health 26, 153–162 (2023).
Google Scholar
Innovative Medicines Initiative-PREFER. Prefer recommendations: Why, when and how to assess and use patient preferences in medical product decision-making. Innovative Medicines Initiative-PREFER (2023).
Soekhai, V. et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov. Today 24, 1324–1331 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ryan, M. et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5, 1–186 (2001).
Google Scholar
Selva, A. et al. Incorporating patients’ views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 88, 102–112 (2017).
Google Scholar
Blackwood, J. et al. How do guideline developers identify, incorporate and report patient preferences? An international cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv. Res. 20, 458 (2020).
Google Scholar
Schoenborn, N. L. et al. Patient perceptions of diabetes guideline frameworks for individualizing glycemic targets. JAMA Intern. Med. 179, 1642–1649 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rid, A. & Wendler, D. Use of a patient preference predictor to help make medical decisions for incapacitated patients. J. Med. Philos. 39, 104–129 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jardas, E., Wasserman, D. & Wendler, D. Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor. J. Med. Ethics 48, 304–310 (2022).
Google Scholar
Russell, S. & Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach 4th edn (Pearson, Hoboken, NJ, 2020).
Birch, J., Creel, K. A., Jha, A. K. & Plutynski, A. Clinical decisions using AI must consider patient values. Nat. Med. 28, 229–232 (2022).
Google Scholar
Tschandl, P. et al. Human–computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat. Med. 26, 1229–1234 (2020).
Google Scholar
van den Broek-Altenburg, E. Expressions of moral values in palliative care patients and their influence on end-of-life decisions. Health Serv. Res. 55, 20 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lösch, L. et al. Capturing emerging experiential knowledge for vaccination guidelines through natural language processing: proof-of-concept study. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e44461 (2023).
Google Scholar
Liao, H. et al. Mining and fusing unstructured online reviews and structured public index data for hospital selection. Inf. Fusion 103, 102142 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rebolledo, L. L., Ryan, M., Bond, C., Murchie, P. & Adam, R. Understanding persistent pain (UPP): a decision aid tool to inform management of persistent pain in pharmacy. Br. J. Pain 17(Suppl. 1), 58 (2023).
Burckhardt, P. & Padman, R. Analyzing self-help forums with ontology-based text mining: an exploration in kidney space. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2015, 1821–1830 (2015).
Google Scholar
Arora, S. & Khayal, I. S. Enhanced identification of care preference documentation in patients’ discharge summaries using pre-trained large language models. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Med. Health Care (AIMHC) 1–9 (Laguna Hills, CA, USA, 2024).
Yung, M. et al. Patient and care partner perspectives and preferences related to myasthenia gravis treatment: a qualitative study. Health Sci. Rep. 7, e70081 (2024).
Google Scholar
Chen, H., Gu, W., Zhang, H., Zhang, Q. & Ding, X. A study on doctor recommendation model in medical guidance services. J. Internet Technol. 25, 659–669 (2024).
Google Scholar
Sookrah, R., Dhowtal, J. D. & Devi Nagowah, S. A DASH diet recommendation system for hypertensive patients using machine learning. Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Technol. (ICoICT) 1–6 (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2019).
Johnson, D. et al. EXPECT-NLP: an integrated pipeline and user interface for exploring patient preferences directly from patient-generated text. in Studies in Computational Intelligence 77–89 (Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2023).
Laser AI. The best AI-supported systematic literature review tool. Laser AI (2025).
Brożek, J. et al. Patients’ values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis—an artificial intelligence-supported systematic review. Allergy 79, 1812–1830 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nilsen, P. et al. Towards evidence-based practice 2.0: leveraging artificial intelligence in healthcare. Front. Health Serv. 4, 1368030 (2024).
Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J., Glasziou, P. & Westbrook, J. The three numbers you need to know about healthcare: the 60–30–10 challenge. BMC Med 18, 102 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rid, A. & Wendler, D. Treatment decision making for incapacitated patients: is development and use of a patient preference predictor feasible?. J. Med. Philos. 39, 130–152 (2014).
Google Scholar
Earp, B. D. et al. A personalized patient preference predictor for substituted judgments in healthcare: technically feasible and ethically desirable. Am. J. Bioeth. 24, 13–26 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nolan, V. J. et al. Incorporating patient values in large language model recommendations for surrogate and proxy decisions. Crit. Care Explor. 6, e1131 (2024).
Google Scholar
Lyu, Y., Xu, Q., Yang, Z. & Liu, J. Prediction of patient choice tendency in medical decision-making based on machine learning algorithm. Front. Public Health 11, 1087358 (2023).
Google Scholar
Shaoibi, A., Neelon, B. & Lenert, L. A. Shared decision making: from decision science to data science. Med. Decis. Mak. 40, 254–265 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hirushit, S., Raja, S., Suwetha, S., & Yazhini, J. AI-powered personalized healthcare recommender. Proc. Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. Appl. (AIMLA) 1–6 (Namakkal, India, 2024).
Atamanov, D. K., Sapakova, A. K., Egorov, V. A. & Sedukhin, O. A. Use of artificial intelligence technologies in the selection of implants for augmentation mammoplasty. Avicenna Bull. 26, 478–487 (2024).
Google Scholar
Zhong, Y., Wang, C. & Wang, L. Survival augmented patient preference incorporated reinforcement learning to evaluate tailoring variables for personalized healthcare. Stats 4, 776–792 (2021).
Google Scholar
Biller-Andorno, N. & Biller, A. Algorithm-aided prediction of patient preferences—an ethics sneak peek. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 1480–1485 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bhansali, A. & Nagwani, N. K. A prototype of doctor recommendation system using classification algorithms. Proc. Emerg. Trends Ind. 4.0 (ETI 4.0) 1–4 (Raigarh, India, 2021).
Chen, T. C. T. Ubiquitous clinic recommendation by predicting a patient’s preferences. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 23, 14–23 (2017).
Google Scholar
Li, Q., Chen, L., Cai, Y. & Wu, D. Hierarchical graph neural network for patient treatment preference prediction with external knowledge. in Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (eds Kashima, H., Ide, T. & Peng, W. C.)13937, 204–215 (Springer, 2023).
Gao, S., Guo, G., Li, R. & Wang, Z. Leveraging multiactions to improve medical personalized ranking for collaborative filtering. J. Healthc. Eng. 2017, 5967302 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pan, X., Song, J. & Zhang, F. Dynamic recommendation of physician assortment with patient preference learning. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 16, 115–126 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. & Greenblum, J. Surrogates and artificial intelligence: why AI trumps family. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 3217–3227 (2020).
Google Scholar
Liang, H. et al. Evaluation and accurate diagnoses of pediatric diseases using artificial intelligence. Nat. Med. 25, 433–438 (2019).
Google Scholar
Qiu, J. et al. Large AI models in health informatics: applications, challenges, and the future. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 27, 6074–6087 (2023).
Google Scholar
Tsao, S.-F. et al. What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: a scoping review. Lancet Digit. Health 3, e175–e194 (2021).
Google Scholar
Wu, J. et al. Clinical text datasets for medical artificial intelligence and large language models—a systematic review. NEJM AI 1, AIra2400012 (2024).
Google Scholar
Chopra, H. et al. Revolutionizing clinical trials: the role of AI in accelerating medical breakthroughs. Int. J. Surg. 109, 4211 (2023).
Google Scholar
Vought, V., Vought, R., Herzog, A. & Habiel, M. M. Application of patient sentiment analysis to evaluate glaucoma care. Ophthalmol. Glaucoma 7, 316–322 (2024).
Google Scholar
Han, R. et al. Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review. Lancet Digit. Health 6, e367–e373 (2024).
Google Scholar
Fusiak, J., Mansmann, U. & Hoffmann, V. S. Methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision algorithms and models and their quantification, balancing and evaluation: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid. Synth. 22, 2593–2600 (2024).
Google Scholar
Elyoseph, Z. et al. Capacity of generative AI to interpret human emotions from visual and textual data: pilot evaluation study. JMIR Ment. Health 11, e54369 (2024).
Google Scholar
Feldt, K. S. The checklist of nonverbal pain indicators (CNPI). Pain. Manag. Nurs. 1, 13–21 (2000).
Google Scholar
Koss, J., Rheinlaender, A., Truebel, H. & Bohnet-Joschko, S. Social media mining in drug development—fundamentals and use cases. Drug Discov. Today 26, 2871–2880 (2021).
Google Scholar
Grossmann, I. et al. AI and the transformation of social science research. Science 380, 1108–1109 (2023).
Google Scholar
Carter, R. E., Attia, Z. I., Lopez-Jimenez, F. & Friedman, P. A. Pragmatic considerations for fostering reproducible research in artificial intelligence. NPJ Digit. Med. 2, 1–3 (2019).
Google Scholar
Simpson, A., Beauchamp, M. R., Dimmock, J., Willis, C. & Jackson, B. Health behaviour change: theories, progress, and recommendations for the next generation of physical activity research. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 80, 102918 (2025).
Google Scholar
Khosravi, M., Zare, Z., Mojtabaeian, S. M. & Izadi, R. Artificial intelligence and decision-making in healthcare: a thematic analysis of a systematic review of reviews. Health Serv. Res. Manag. Epidemiol. 11, 15 (2024).
Lösch, L., et al. Incorporating stakeholders’ experiences in guideline development through natural language processing (NLP) analysis—a practical guide. Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Amsterdam, 2024).
Crawford, R., Welch, V. L., Shah, R., Doward, L. & Truchan, C. A pilot study of the application of natural language interpretation to identify insights on acute lymphocytic leukemia and its treatment from social media data. Blood 138, 3012 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ning, Y. et al. Generative artificial intelligence and ethical considerations in health care: a scoping review and ethics checklist. Lancet Digit. Health 6, e848–e856 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F. & Motta, E. Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges. Artif. Intell. Rev. 57, 259 (2024).
Google Scholar
Barredo Arrieta, A. et al. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf. Fusion 58, 82–115 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ferrario, A., Gloeckler, S. & Biller-Andorno, N. Ethics of the algorithmic prediction of goal of care preferences: from theory to practice. J. Med. Ethics 49, 165–174 (2023).
Google Scholar
Loftus, T. J. et al. Predicting patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review for the artificial intelligence-guided patient preference predictor. Front. Artif. Intell. 7, 1477447 (2024).
Google Scholar
van Haastrecht, M., Bekkers, W. J., Koning, R. H., van den Besselaar, P. & van der Veer, S. N. SYMBALS: a systematic review methodology blending active learning and snowballing. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 6, 685591 (2021).
Google Scholar
Tricco, A. C. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 467–473 (2018).
Google Scholar
van de Schoot, R. et al. An open-source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 125–133 (2021).
Google Scholar
National Library of Medicine. Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine–Clinical Terminology (SNOMED CT) International Edition. National Library of Medicine (2025).
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 2382:2015—Information Technology—Vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization (Geneva, 2015).
Health Level Seven International. HL7 FHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources, Release 4. Health Level Seven International (2019).
Ng, M. Y., Kapur, S., Blizinsky, K. D. & Hernandez-Boussard, T. The AI life cycle: a holistic approach to creating ethical AI for health decisions. Nat. Med. 28, 2247–2249 (2022).
Google Scholar
Association for Computing Machinery. ACM Computing Classification System. Association for Computing Machinery (2025).
Harrison, R. et al. Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Serv. Res 21, 144 (2021).
Google Scholar
Norgeot, B. et al. Minimum information about clinical artificial intelligence modeling: the MI-CLAIM checklist. Nat. Med 26, 1320–1324 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tyndall, J. AACODS Checklist. Flinders University (2010).
Guyatt, G. et al. Core GRADE 1: overview of the Core GRADE approach. BMJ 389, e081903 (2025).
Google Scholar
link