Shaping the future of healthcare in British Columbia: Establishing provincial clinical governance for responsible deployment of artificial intelligence tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As healthcare embraces the transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is imperative to safeguard patient and provider safety, equity, and trust in the healthcare system. This article outlines the approach taken by the British Columbia (BC) Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) to establish clinical governance for the responsible deployment of AI tools in healthcare. Leveraging its province-wide mandate and expertise, PHSA establishes the infrastructure and processes to proactively and systematically intake, assess, prioritize, and evaluate AI tools. PHSA proposes a coordinated approach in AI tool deployment in collaboration with regional health authorities to prevent duplication of efforts and ensure equitable access to existing and emerging AI tools across the province of BC, incorporating principles of anti-Indigenous racism, cultural safety, and humility. The proposed governance structure underscores the identification of clinical needs, proactive ethics review, rigorous risk assessment, data validation, transparent communication, provider training, and ongoing evaluation to ensure success.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".