Building health systems capable of leveraging AI: applying Paul Farmer’s 5S framework for equitable global health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare is often positioned as a solution to the greatest challenges facing global health. Advocates propose that AI can bridge gaps in care delivery and access, improving healthcare quality and reducing inequity, including in resource-constrained settings. A broad base of critical scholarship has highlighted important issues with healthcare AI, including algorithmic bias and inequitable and inaccurate model outputs. While such criticisms are valid, there exists a much more fundamental challenge that is often overlooked in global health policy debates: the dangerous mismatch between AI's imagined benefits and the material realities of healthcare systems globally. AI cannot be deployed effectively or ethically in contexts lacking sufficient social and material infrastructure and resources to provide effective healthcare services. Continued investments in AI within unprepared, under-resourced contexts risk misallocating resources and potentially causing more harm than good. The article concludes by providing concrete questions to assess AI systemic capacity and socio-technical readiness in global health.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".