Artificial intelligence tool development: what clinicians need to know?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital medicine and smart healthcare will not be realised without the cognizant participation of clinicians. Artificial intelligence (AI) today primarily involves computers or machines designed to simulate aspects of human intelligence using mathematically designed neural networks, although early AI systems relied on a variety of non-neural network techniques. With the increased complexity of the neural layers, deep machine learning (ML) can self-learn and augment many human tasks that require decision-making on the basis of multiple sources of data. Clinicians are important stakeholders in the use of AI and ML tools. The review questions are as follows: What is the typical process of AI tool development in the full cycle? What are the important concepts and technical aspects of each step? This review synthesises a targeted literature review and reports and summarises online structured materials to present a succinct explanation of the whole development process of AI tools. The development of AI tools in healthcare involves a series of cyclical processes: (1) identifying clinical problems suitable for AI solutions, (2) forming project teams or collaborating with experts, (3) organising and curating relevant data, (4) establishing robust physical and virtual infrastructure, and computer systems' architecture that support subsequent stages, (5) exploring AI neural networks on open access platforms before making a new decision, (6) validating AI/ML models, (7) registration, (8) clinical deployment and continuous performance monitoring and (9) improving the AI ecosystem ensures its adaptability to evolving clinical needs. A sound understanding of this would help clinicians appreciate the development of AI tools and engage in codesigning, evaluating and monitoring the tools. This would facilitate broader use and closer regulation of AI/ML tools in healthcare settings.
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 | 0.021 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".