MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406310972 · doi:10.1136/fmch-2024-003238

Use of AI in family medicine publications: a joint editorial from journal editors

2025· editorial· en· W4406310972 on OpenAlexaff
Sarina Schrager, Dean A. Seehusen, Sumi M. Sexton, Caroline R. Richardson, Jon O. Neher, Nicholas Pimlott, Marjorie A. Bowman, José E. Rodríguez, Christopher P. Morley, Li Li, James DomDera

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine and Community Health · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingJoint (building)Library scienceMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are multiple guidelines from publishers and organisations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in publishing.[1–5][1] However, none are specific to family medicine. Most journals have some basic AI use recommendations for authors, but more explicit direction is needed, as not all AI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0170.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Medicine and Community HealthSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207