6.Q. Round table: Artificial Intelligence in healthcare: navigating ethically with equity and workforce empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a pivotal technology with vast promises for healthcare. However, integrating AI into clinical and public health settings must be cautiously approached to ensure that it does not inadvertently exacerbate existing health system problems. The healthcare workers, already under severe stress, could view AI as a threat to job security rather than as a support mechanism. Moreover, past experiences with digital transformations, such as Electronic Health Records, have shown that technological integration can sometimes increase rather than decrease the burden on healthcare workers, leading to burnout and dissatisfaction, and thus worsening the healthcare workforce crisis. Furthermore, equity and ethical considerations are paramount in the deployment of AI in healthcare. Data privacy, patient consent, and algorithmic bias must be addressed to ensure that AI applications are designed to support and enhance human decision-making that is sensitive to the social determinants of health and accountable to equity and social inclusion, to the needs and rights of the healthcare workforce, and the dignity of the patients and populations. While AI presents significant opportunities for health systems and healthcare workers, there is a lack of knowledge, evidence-based policies, and ethical frameworks that support equitable and human-centred approaches to AI implementation. Objectives This round table workshop aligns three major public health challenges: the integration of AI in health systems, the global healthcare workforce crisis, and the improvement of equity and equality. It critically explores capacity building for AI, equity in AI implementation, and regulatory measures for ethical and responsible AI deployment, addressing the following major questions: What are the critical impacts of AI on the healthcare workforce? How can the healthcare workforce be effectively upskilled and supported to adapt to the changes brought by AI technologies? What regulatory frameworks and governance models are necessary to ensure AI’s safe and ethical implementation in healthcare, that is also sensitive to equity, gender equality and the needs of minority groups? Finally, what actionable steps and leadership can public health take to implement AI technologies while addressing the healthcare workforce needs, equity issues, and ethical guidelines? The panellists will illuminate these questions from different disciplinary approaches, helping us to disentangle complexity and to build capacity for evidence-based and socially inclusive AI policies. The workshop contributes to better understand the risks and benefits of AI. It seeks to advance knowledge exchange of good practice experiences and effective implementation. Key messages • The effects of AI on the healthcare workforce must be monitored and strategies adapted to mitigate the healthcare workforce crisis and to upskill and empower healthcare workers. • There is a need for human-centred and ethically responsive AI implementation and governance measures that support equity, gender equality, and diversity in healthcare settings. Speakers/Panelists Abi Sriharan Schulich School of Business York University, York, Canada Kasia Czabanowska Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Bernadette Kumar Migration Health Unit, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway Marius-Ionuț Ungureanu Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Farhang Tahzib Faculty of Public Health, Haywards heath, UK
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.061 |
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".