Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Emergency Medicine: Balancing Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, has rapidly evolved and is reshaping various fields, including clinical medicine. Emergency medicine stands to benefit from AI's capacity for high-volume data processing, workflow optimization, and clinical decision support. However, important challenges exist, ranging from model "hallucinations" and data bias to questions of interpretability, liability, and ethical use in high-stake environments. This updated viewpoint provides a structured overview of AI's current capabilities in emergency medicine, highlights real-world applications, and explores concerns regarding regulatory requirements, safety standards, and transparency (explainable AI). We discuss the potential risks and limitations of LLMs, including their performance in rare or atypical presentations common in the emergency department and potential biases that could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. We also address the regulatory landscape, particularly the liability for AI-driven decisions, and emphasize the need for clear guidelines and human oversight. Ultimately, AI holds enormous promise for improving patient care and resource management in emergency medicine; however, ensuring safety, fairness, and accountability remains vital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".