Developing a Research Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are driving innovation in biosciences and are already affecting key elements of medical scholarship and clinical care. Many schools of medicine are capitalizing on the promise of these new technologies by establishing academic units to catalyze and grow research and innovation in AI/ML. At Stanford University, we have developed a successful model for an AI/ML research center with support from academic leaders, clinical departments, extramural grants, and industry partners. The Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging uses the following 4 key tactics to support AI/ML research: project-based learning opportunities that build interdisciplinary collaboration; internal grant programs that catalyze extramural funding; infrastructure that facilitates the rapid creation of large multimodal AI-ready clinical data sets; and educational and open data programs that engage the broader research community. The center is based on the premise that foundational and applied research are not in tension but instead are complementary. Solving important biomedical problems with AI/ML requires high-quality foundational team science that incorporates the knowledge and expertise of clinicians, clinician scientists, computer scientists, and data scientists. As AI/ML becomes an essential component of research and clinical care, multidisciplinary centers of excellence in AI/ML will become a key part of the scholarly portfolio of academic medical centers and will provide a foundation for the responsible, ethical, and fair implementation of AI/ML systems.
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 | 0.048 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.016 |
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".