Artificial intelligence in primary care practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of primary care clinicians and health system leaders on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to derive information about patients' social determinants of health. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Semistructured, 30-minute virtual interviews were conducted with eligible participants across Ontario wherein they were asked about their perceptions of using AI to derive social data for patients. A descriptive content analysis was used to elicit themes from the data. MAIN FINDINGS: A total of 12 interviews were conducted with 7 family physicians, 3 clinical team members of various health professions, and 2 health system leaders. Five main themes described the current state of social determinants of health information, perceived benefits of and concerns with using AI to derive social data, how participants would want to see and use AI-derived social data, and suggestions for ethical principles that should underpin the development of this AI tool. CONCLUSION: Most participants were enthusiastic about the possibility of using AI to derive social data for patients in primary care but noted concerns that should be addressed first. These findings can guide the development of AI-based tools for use in primary care settings.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".