MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037647569 · doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00584-1

Artificial intelligence in health care: laying the Foundation for Responsible, sustainable, and inclusive innovation in low- and middle-income countries

2020· article· en· W3037647569 on OpenAlexafffund
Hassane Alami, Lysanne Rivard, Pascale Lehoux, Steven J. Hoffman, Stéphanie B.M. Cadeddu, Mathilde Savoldelli, M. Samri, Mohamed Ali Ag Ahmed, Richard Fleet, Jean‐Paul Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobalization and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCégep de LévisYork UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLow and middle income countriesHealth careHealth services researchPublic healthGlobal healthSustainable developmentHealth policySocial policyHealth administrationEconomic growthHealth informaticsDeveloping countryBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceNursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization and other institutions are considering Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a technology that can potentially address some health system gaps, especially the reduction of global health inequalities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, because most AI-based health applications are developed and implemented in high-income countries, their use in LMICs contexts is recent and there is a lack of robust local evaluations to guide decision-making in low-resource settings. After discussing the potential benefits as well as the risks and challenges raised by AI-based health care, we propose five building blocks to guide the development and implementation of more responsible, sustainable, and inclusive AI health care technologies in LMICs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.039
Scholarly communication0.0230.014
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations263
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobalization and HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207