An institutional framework to support ethical fair and equitable artificial intelligence augmented care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordinated access to multi-domain health data can facilitate the development and implementation of artificial intelligence-augmented clinical decision support (AI-CDS). However, scalable institutional frameworks supporting these activities are lacking. We present the PULSE framework, aimed to establish an integrative and ethically governed ecosystem for the patient-guided, patient-contextualized use of multi-domain health data for AI-augmented care. We describe deliverables related to stakeholder engagement and infrastructure development to support routine engagement of patients for consent-guided data abstraction, pre-processing, and cloud migration to support AI-CDS model development and surveillance. Central focus is placed on the routine collection of social determinants of health and patient self-reported health status to contextualize and evaluate models for fair and equitable use. Inaugural feasibility is reported for over 30,000 consecutively engaged patients. The described framework, conceptually developed to support a multi-site cardiovascular institute, is translatable to other disease domains, offering a validated architecture for use by large-scale tertiary care institutions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".