The Aspects of Running Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Care; a Scoping Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial Inteligence (AI) application in emergency medicine is subject to ethical and legal inconsistencies. The purposes of this study were to map the extent of AI applications in emergency medicine, to identify ethical issues related to the use of AI, and to propose an ethical framework for its use. Methods: A comprehensive literature collection was compiled through electronic databases/internet search engines (PubMed, Web of Science Platform, MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar/Academia, and ERIC) and reference lists. We considered studies published between 1 January 2014 and 6 October 2022. Articles that did not self-classify as studies of an AI intervention, those that were not relevant to Emergency Departments (EDs), and articles that did not report outcomes or evaluations were excluded. Descriptive and thematic analyses of data extracted from the included articles were conducted. Results: A total of 137 out of the 2175 citations in the original database were eligible for full-text evaluation. Of these articles, 47 were included in the scoping review and considered for theme extraction. This review covers seven main areas of AI techniques in emergency medicine: Machine Learning (ML) Algorithms (10.64%), prehospital emergency management (12.76%), triage, patient acuity and disposition of patients (19.15%), disease and condition prediction (23.40%), emergency department management (17.03%), the future impact of AI on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) (8.51%), and ethical issues (8.51%). Conclusion: There has been a rapid increase in AI research in emergency medicine in recent years. Several studies have demonstrated the potential of AI in diverse contexts, particularly when improving patient outcomes through predictive modelling. According to the synthesis of studies in our review, AI-based decision-making lacks transparency. This feature makes AI decision-making opaque.
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 | 0.030 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".