Ethical Use of Electronic Health Record Data and Artificial Intelligence: Recommendations of the Primary Care Informatics Working Group of the International Medical Informatics Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To create practical recommendations for the curation of routinely collected health data and artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care with a focus on ensuring their ethical use. METHODS: We defined data curation as the process of management of data throughout its lifecycle to ensure it can be used into the future. We used a literature review and Delphi exercises to capture insights from the Primary Care Informatics Working Group (PCIWG) of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA). RESULTS: We created six recommendations: (1) Ensure consent and formal process to govern access and sharing throughout the data life cycle; (2) Sustainable data creation/collection requires trust and permission; (3) Pay attention to Extract-Transform-Load (ETL) processes as they may have unrecognised risks; (4) Integrate data governance and data quality management to support clinical practice in integrated care systems; (5) Recognise the need for new processes to address the ethical issues arising from AI in primary care; (6) Apply an ethical framework mapped to the data life cycle, including an assessment of data quality to achieve effective data curation. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical use of data needs to be integrated within the curation process, hence running throughout the data lifecycle. Current information systems may not fully detect the risks associated with ETL and AI; they need careful scrutiny. With distributed integrated care systems where data are often used remote from documentation, harmonised data quality assessment, management, and governance is important. These recommendations should help maintain trust and connectedness in contemporary information systems and planned developments.
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 | 0.461 | 0.444 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".