The rapidly evolving science about the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created unprecedented health information needs and dramatic changes in policies globally. We describe a platform, Watson Assistant (WA), which has been used to develop conversational agents to deliver COVID-19 related information. We characterized the diverse use cases and implementations during the early pandemic and measured adoption through a number of users, messages sent, and conversational turns (ie, pairs of interactions between users and agents). Thirty-seven institutions in 9 countries deployed COVID-19 conversational agents with WA between March 30 and August 10, 2020, including 24 governmental agencies, 7 employers, 5 provider organizations, and 1 health plan. Over 6.8 million messages were delivered through the platform. The mean number of conversational turns per session ranged between 1.9 and 3.5. Our experience demonstrates that conversational technologies can be rapidly deployed for pandemic response and are adopted globally by a wide range of users.

OBJECTIVE: IBM(R) Watson for Oncology (WfO) is a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) that provides evidence-informed therapeutic options to cancer-treating clinicians. A panel of experienced oncologists compared CDSS treatment options to treatment decisions made by clinicians to characterize the quality of CDSS therapeutic options and decisions made in practice. METHODS: This study included patients treated between 1/2017 and 7/2018 for breast, colon, lung, and rectal cancers at Bumrungrad International Hospital (BIH), Thailand. Treatments selected by clinicians were paired with therapeutic options presented by the CDSS and coded to mask the origin of options presented. The panel rated the acceptability of each treatment in the pair by consensus, with acceptability defined as compliant with BIH's institutional practices. Descriptive statistics characterized the study population and treatment-decision evaluations by cancer type and stage. RESULTS: Nearly 60% (187) of 313 treatment pairs for breast, lung, colon, and rectal cancers were identical or equally acceptable, with 70% (219) of WfO therapeutic options identical to, or acceptable alternatives to, BIH therapy. In 30% of cases (94), 1 or both treatment options were rated as unacceptable. Of 32 cases where both WfO and BIH options were acceptable, WfO was preferred in 18 cases and BIH in 14 cases. Colorectal cancers exhibited the highest proportion of identical or equally acceptable treatments; stage IV cancers demonstrated the lowest. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a system designed in the US to support, rather than replace, cancer-treating clinicians provides therapeutic options which are generally consistent with recommendations from oncologists outside the US.