The Promise and Perils of Artificial Intelligence in Health Professions Education Practice and Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Artificial intelligence (AI) methods, especially machine learning and natural language processing, are increasingly affecting health professions education (HPE), including the medical school application and selection processes, assessment, and scholarship production. The rise of large language models over the past 18 months, such as ChatGPT, has raised questions about how best to incorporate these methods into HPE. The lack of training in AI among most HPE faculty and scholars poses an important challenge in facilitating such discussions. In this commentary, the authors provide a primer on the AI methods most often used in the practice and scholarship of HPE, discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities these tools afford, and underscore that these methods should be understood as part of the larger set of statistical tools available.Despite their ability to process huge amounts of data and their high performance completing some tasks, AI methods are only as good as the data on which they are trained. Of particular importance is that these models can perpetuate the biases that are present in those training datasets, and they can be applied in a biased manner by human users. A minimum set of expectations for the application of AI methods in HPE practice and scholarship is discussed in this commentary, including the interpretability of the models developed and the transparency needed into the use and characteristics of such methods.The rise of AI methods is affecting multiple aspects of HPE including raising questions about how best to incorporate these models into HPE practice and scholarship. In this commentary, we provide a primer on the AI methods most often used in HPE and discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities these tools afford.
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 | 0.041 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".