MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399302707 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078303

Why digital innovation may not reduce healthcare’s environmental footprint

2024· article· en· W4399302707 on OpenAlexaff
Gabrielle Samuel, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Federica Lucivero, Anneke Lucassen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsCarbon footprintHealth careGreenhouse gasHarmDigital healthBusinessEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceEconomicsPsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital innovations come with their own environmental cost and should not be seen as a simple fix for healthcare emissions, argue Gabrielle Samuel and colleagues Healthcare is becoming increasingly digitalised through innovations in information and communication technologies as well as advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI).1 Advocates enthuse that this digitalisation—including monitoring devices, streaming, and data storage—will improve key aspects of healthcare delivery such as safety, accessibility, quality of care, effectiveness, and efficiency.2 Others debate whether these promises can be met because of complex social, cultural, economic, and political implementation challenges.3 More recently, digital innovation has been promoted as a means to reduce the environmental harms associated with healthcare delivery.4 Healthcare systems contribute to roughly 5% of a country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, with this figure often being higher in high income countries.5 Although digitalisation can reduce environmental harms, technologies could also be implemented in ways that do not lead to reductions. Indeed, given the paradoxical increase in energy use associated with the introduction of energy saving technologies—the so called rebound effect—digital innovation may increase resource use with little change to health outcomes. Digital innovations have the potential to decrease the environmental harm from health systems in several ways (box 1). First, digital innovations are expected to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with existing healthcare facilities by improving their efficiency. In the UK the NHS has predicted carbon savings through the use of realtime monitoring, including artificial intelligence, to better control buildings (eg, lights, heating, and cooling) and to forecast resource allocation more effectively.6 Use of digital technologies to predict electricity and water consumption across various healthcare facilities has allowed hospital managers to identify variation in usage and deal with the causes.7 Box 1 ### How digital technologies might reduce the environmental harms of healthcare #### Improving the operational efficiency of existing healthcare infrastructureRETURN TO TEXT

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207