Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite widespread advancements in and envisioned uses for artificial intelligence (AI), few examples of successfully implemented AI innovations exist in primary care (PC) settings. Objectives To identify priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario, Canada. Methods A collaborative consultation event engaged multiple stakeholders in a nominal group technique process to generate, discuss, and rank ideas for how AI can support Ontario PC. Results The consultation process produced nine ranked priorities: 1) preventative care and risk profiling, 2) patient self-management of condition(s), 3) management and synthesis of information, 4) improved communication between PC and AI stakeholders, 5) data sharing and interoperability, 6-tie) clinical decision support, 6-tie) administrative staff support, 8) practitioner clerical and routine task support, and 9) increased mental health care capacity and support. Themes emerging from small group discussions about barriers, implementation issues, and resources needed to support the priorities included: equity and the digital divide; system capacity and culture; data availability and quality; legal and ethical issues; user-centered design; patient-centredness; and proper evaluation of AI-driven tool implementation. Discussion Findings provide guidance for future work on AI and PC. There are immediate opportunities to use existing resources to develop and test AI for priority areas at the patient, provider, and system level. For larger-scale, sustainable innovations, there is a need for longer-term projects that lay foundations around data and interdisciplinary work. Conclusion Study findings can be used to inform future research and development of AI for PC, and to guide resource planning and allocation. SUMMARY What is already known? – The field of artificial intelligence and primary care is underdeveloped. What does this paper add? – An environmental scan without geographic location restriction identified 110 artificial intelligence-driven tools with potential relevance to primary care that existed around the time of the study. – A multi-stakeholder consultation session identified nine priorities to guide future work on artificial intelligence and primary care in Ontario, Canada. – Priorities for artificial intelligence and primary care include provider, patient, and system level uses as well as foundational areas related to data and interdisciplinary communication.
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 | 0.066 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".