Computerization of the Work of General Practitioners: Mixed Methods Survey of Final-Year Medical Students in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential for digital health technologies, including machine learning (ML)-enabled tools, to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the opinions of final-year medical students in Ireland regarding the potential of future technology to replace or work alongside general practitioners (GPs) in performing key tasks. METHODS: Between March 2019 and April 2020, using a convenience sample, we conducted a mixed methods paper-based survey of final-year medical students. The survey was administered at 4 out of 7 medical schools in Ireland across each of the 4 provinces in the country. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. We used thematic content analysis to investigate free-text responses. RESULTS: In total, 43.1% (252/585) of the final-year students at 3 medical schools responded, and data collection at 1 medical school was terminated due to disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to forecasting the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI)/ML on primary care 25 years from now, around half (127/246, 51.6%) of all surveyed students believed the work of GPs will change minimally or not at all. Notably, students who did not intend to enter primary care predicted that AI/ML will have a great impact on the work of GPs. CONCLUSIONS: We caution that without a firm curricular foundation on advances in AI/ML, students may rely on extreme perspectives involving self-preserving optimism biases that demote the impact of advances in technology on primary care on the one hand and technohype on the other. Ultimately, these biases may lead to negative consequences in health care. Improvements in medical education could help prepare tomorrow's doctors to optimize and lead the ethical and evidence-based implementation of AI/ML-enabled tools in medicine for enhancing the care of tomorrow's patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".