Artificial Intelligence: An Interprofessional Perspective on Implications for Geriatric Mental Health Research and Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare aims to learn patterns in large multimodal datasets within and across individuals. These patterns may either improve understanding of current clinical status or predict a future outcome. AI holds the potential to revolutionize geriatric mental health care and research by supporting diagnosis, treatment, and clinical decision-making. However, much of this momentum is driven by data and computer scientists and engineers and runs the risk of being disconnected from pragmatic issues in clinical practice. This interprofessional perspective bridges the experiences of clinical scientists and data science. We provide a brief overview of AI with the main focus on possible applications and challenges of using AI-based approaches for research and clinical care in geriatric mental health. We suggest future AI applications in geriatric mental health consider pragmatic considerations of clinical practice, methodological differences between data and clinical science, and address issues of ethics, privacy, and trust.
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 | 0.064 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".