The promises and challenges of clinical AI in community paediatric medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread adoption of virtual care technologies has quickly reshaped healthcare operations and delivery, particularly in the context of community medicine. In this paper, we use the virtual care landscape as a point of departure to envision the promises and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. Our analysis is directed towards community care practitioners interested in learning more about how AI can change their practice along with the critical considerations required to integrate AI into their practice. We highlight examples of how AI can enable access to new sources of clinical data while augmenting clinical workflows and healthcare delivery. AI can help optimize how and when care is delivered by community practitioners while also improving practice efficiency, accessibility, and the overall quality of care. Unlike virtual care, however, AI is still missing many of the key enablers required to facilitate adoption into the community care landscape and there are challenges we must consider and resolve for AI to successfully improve healthcare delivery. We discuss several critical considerations, including data governance in the clinic setting, healthcare practitioner education, regulation of AI in healthcare, clinician reimbursement, and access to both technology and the internet.
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 | 0.048 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".