Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health care has the potential to transform the industry, but it also raises ethical, regulatory, and safety concerns. This review paper provides an in-depth examination of the benefits and risks associated with AI in health care, with a focus on issues like biases, transparency, data privacy, and safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the advantages and drawbacks of incorporating AI in health care. This assessment centers on the potential biases in AI algorithms, transparency challenges, data privacy issues, and safety risks in health care settings. METHODS: Studies included in this review were selected based on their relevance to AI applications in health care, focusing on ethical, regulatory, and safety considerations. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and relevant research papers published in English. Exclusion criteria included non-peer-reviewed articles, editorials, and studies not directly related to AI in health care. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across 8 databases: OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, OVID PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL Plus with Full Text, ProQuest Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest Philosopher's Index, ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace, and Wiley Cochrane Library. The search was last updated on June 23, 2023. Results were synthesized using qualitative methods to identify key themes and findings related to the benefits and risks of AI in health care. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 8796 articles. After removing duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 44 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. This review highlights the significant promise that AI holds in health care, such as enhancing health care delivery by providing more accurate diagnoses, personalized treatment plans, and efficient resource allocation. However, persistent concerns remain, including biases ingrained in AI algorithms, a lack of transparency in decision-making, potential compromises of patient data privacy, and safety risks associated with AI implementation in clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, while AI presents the opportunity for a health care revolution, it is imperative to address the ethical, regulatory, and safety challenges linked to its integration. Proactive measures are required to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed responsibly, striking a balance between innovation and the safeguarding of patient well-being.
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 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".