Current Status and Future Direction of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), including deep learning, has led to the development of technologies that may assist in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases, prediction of disease risk and prognosis, health index monitoring, drug development, and healthcare management and administration. However, in order for AI technology to improve the quality of medical care, technical problems and the efficacy of algorithms should be evaluated in real clinical environments rather than the environment in which algorithms are developed. Further consideration should be given to whether these models can improve the quality of medical care and clinical outcomes of patients. In addition, the development of regulatory systems to secure the safety of AI medical technology, the ethical and legal issues related to the proliferation of AI technology, and the impacts on the relationship with patients also need to be addressed. Systematic training of healthcare personnel is needed to enable adaption to the rapid changes in the healthcare environment. An overall review and revision of undergraduate medical curriculum is required to enable extraction of significant information from rapidly expanding medical information, data science literacy, empathy/compassion for patients, and communication among various healthcare providers. Specialized postgraduate AI education programs for each medical specialty are needed to develop proper utilization of AI models in clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".