Artificial intelligence and gender equity: An integrated approach for health professional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly integrates into health workplaces, evidence suggests AI can exacerbate gender inequity. Health professional programmes have a role to play in ensuring graduates grasp the challenges facing working in an AI-mediated world. APPROACH: Drawing from feminist scholars and empirical evidence, this conceptual paper synthesises current and future ways in which AI compounds gender inequities and, in response, proposes foci for an integrated approach to teaching about AI and equity. ANALYSIS: We propose three concerns. Firstly, multiple literature reviews suggest that the gender divide is embedded within AI technologies from both process (AI development) and product (AI output) perspectives. Next, there is emerging evidence that AI is reinforcing already entrenched health workforce inequities, where certain types of roles are seen as being the domain of certain genders. Finally, AI may disassociate health professionals' interactions with an embodied, agentic patient by diverting attention to a gendered digital twin. IMPLICATIONS: Responding to these concerns is not simply a matter of teaching about bias but needs to promote an understanding of AI as a sociotechnical phenomenon. Healthcare curricula could usefully provide clinically relevant educational experiences that illustrate how AI intersects with inequitable gendered knowledge practices. Students can be directed to: (1) explore doubts when working with AI-generated data or decisions; (2) refocus on caring through prioritising embodied connections; and (3) consider how to negotiate gendered workplaces in a time of AI. CONCLUSION: The intersection of gender equity and AI provides an accessible, illustrative case about how changing knowledge practices have the potential to embed inequity and how health professional education programmes might respond.
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 | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".