AIFM-ed Curriculum Framework for Postgraduate Family Medicine Education on Artificial Intelligence: Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND As health care moves to a more digital environment, there is a growing need to train future family doctors on the clinical uses of artificial intelligence (AI). However, family medicine training in AI has often been inconsistent or lacking. OBJECTIVE The aim of the study is to develop a curriculum framework for family medicine postgraduate education on AI called “Artificial Intelligence Training in Postgraduate Family Medicine Education” (AIFM-ed). METHODS First, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review on existing AI education frameworks guided by the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting the results. Next, 2 national expert panels were conducted. Panelists included family medicine educators and residents knowledgeable in AI from family medicine residency programs across Canada. Participants were purposively sampled, and panels were held via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed. Data were analyzed using content analysis. We followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research for panels. RESULTS An integration of the scoping review results and 2 panel discussions of 14 participants led to the development of the AIFM-ed curriculum framework for AI training in postgraduate family medicine education with five key elements: (1) need and purpose of the curriculum, (2) learning objectives, (3) curriculum content, (4) organization of curriculum content, and (5) implementation aspects of the curriculum. CONCLUSIONS Using the results of this study, we developed the AIFM-ed curriculum framework for AI training in postgraduate family medicine education. This framework serves as a structured guide for integrating AI competencies into medical education, ensuring that future family physicians are equipped with the necessary skills to use AI effectively in their clinical practice. Future research should focus on the validation and implementation of the AIFM-ed framework within family medicine education. Institutions also are encouraged to consider adapting the AIFM-ed framework within their own programs, tailoring it to meet the specific needs of their trainees and health care environments.
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 | 0.089 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".