The Perceptions of Potential Prerequisites for Artificial Intelligence in Danish General Practice: Vignette-Based Interview Study Among General Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been deemed revolutionary in medicine; however, no AI tools have been implemented or validated in Danish general practice. General practice in Denmark has an excellent digitization system for developing and using AI. Nevertheless, there is a lack of involvement of general practitioners (GPs) in developing AI. The perspectives of GPs as end users are essential for facilitating the next stage of AI development in general practice. Objective: This study aimed to identify the essential prerequisites that GPs perceive as necessary to realize the potential of AI in Danish general practice. Methods: This study used semistructured interviews and vignettes among GPs to gain perspectives on the potential of AI in general practice. A total of 12 GPs interested in the potential of AI in general practice were interviewed in 2019 and 2021. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted to identify the dominant themes throughout the data. Results: In the data analysis, four main themes were identified as essential prerequisites for GPs when considering the potential of AI in general practice: (1) AI must begin with the low-hanging fruit, (2) AI must be meaningful in the GP's work, (3) the GP-patient relationship must be maintained despite AI, and (4) AI must be a free, active, and integrated option in the electronic health record (EHR). These 4 themes suggest that the development of AI should initially focus on low-complexity tasks that do not influence patient interactions but facilitate GPs' work in a meaningful manner as an integrated part of the EHR. Examples of this include routine and administrative tasks. Conclusions: The research findings outline the participating GPs' perceptions of the essential prerequisites to consider when exploring the potential applications of AI in primary care settings. We believe that these perceptions of potential prerequisites can support the initial stages of future development and assess the suitability of existing AI tools for general practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".