Bibliographic record
Abstract
We would like to thank Webster for his insight on our article, “Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: A scoping review.” Our article highlights the differing views on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. As noted by Webster, studies, including the one by Masters, 1 argue for the disruptive potential of AI tools, postulating the (almost) complete replacement of physicians by AI systems. This perspective contrasts with most studies that discuss the diagnostic and predictive role of AI tools and their capacity to process large data to aid physicians’ medical decision making. Therefore, while we agree that the complete replacement of physicians by AI is unlikely as of now, the expanding role of AI in health care is evident by the growing literature on the collaboration between clinician experts and AI. 2 Furthermore, we agree that the transparency of AI tools is critical in becoming mindful users of AI in the health care setting. However, we cannot completely understand AI’s decision-making process. This has led to pitfalls, including those highlighted by Webster, where an AI software assessed patients with pneumonia and asthma to be at a lower risk of complications than patients with pneumonia alone, as it failed to account for the variable of intensive care unit admission. 3 However, this limitation of AI tools is not a reason to discount AI. Instead, it highlights the importance of AI training in medicine and the involvement of physicians during the development of AI tools. As users of AI, physicians must understand its strengths and limitations, identifying the variables involved in its decision making to ensure the validity of its algorithms. Hence, we believe that the transparency of AI tools is not a binary outcome but a goal that we must continuously strive to achieve. This effort is critical in avoiding the phenomenon of black box AI, especially as the impact of AI on health care is continued and imminent.
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 | 0.012 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.064 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.014 |
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".