Primary care physicians’ perceptions of artificial intelligence systems in the care of adolescents’ mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given that mental health problems in adolescence may have lifelong impacts, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in identifying and managing these issues is important. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may offer solutions to the current challenges involved in mental health care. We therefore explored PCPs' challenges in addressing adolescents' mental health, along with their attitudes towards using AI to assist them in their tasks. METHODS: We used purposeful sampling to recruit PCPs for a virtual Focus Group (FG). The virtual FG lasted 75 minutes and was moderated by two facilitators. A life transcription was produced by an online meeting software. Transcribed data was cleaned, followed by a priori and inductive coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We reached out to 35 potential participants via email. Seven agreed to participate, and ultimately four took part in the FG. PCPs perceived that AI systems have the potential to be cost-effective, credible, and useful in collecting large amounts of patients' data, and relatively credible. They envisioned AI assisting with tasks such as diagnoses and establishing treatment plans. However, they feared that reliance on AI might result in a loss of clinical competency. PCPs wanted AI systems to be user-friendly, and they were willing to assist in achieving this goal if it was within their scope of practice and they were compensated for their contribution. They stressed a need for regulatory bodies to deal with medicolegal and ethical aspects of AI and clear guidelines to reduce or eliminate the potential of patient harm. CONCLUSION: This study provides the groundwork for assessing PCPs' perceptions of AI systems' features and characteristics, potential applications, possible negative aspects, and requirements for using them. A future study of adolescents' perspectives on integrating AI into mental healthcare might contribute a fuller understanding of the potential of AI for this population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".