Healthcare uses of artificial intelligence: Challenges and opportunities for growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI), like deep learning algorithms and neural networks, are being intensely explored for novel healthcare applications in areas such as imaging and diagnoses, risk analysis, lifestyle management and monitoring, health information management, and virtual health assistance. Expected benefits in these areas are wide-ranging and include increased speed in imaging, greater insight into predictive screening, and decreased healthcare costs and inefficiency. However, AI-based clinical tools also create a host of situations wherein commonly-held values and ethical principles may be challenged. In this short column, we highlight three potentially problematic aspects of AI use in healthcare: (1) dynamic information and consent, (2) transparency and ownership, and (3) privacy and discrimination. We discuss their impact on patient/client, clinician, and health institution values and suggest ways to tackle this impact. We propose that AI-related ethical challenges may represent an opportunity for growth in organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".