Consumer Data is Key to Artificial Intelligence Value: Welcome to the Health Care Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Humanity stands at the threshold of a new era in biological understanding, disease treatment, and overall wellness. The convergence of evolving patient and caregiver (consumer) behaviors, increased data collection, advancements in health technology and standards, federal policies, and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is driving one of the most significant transformations in human history. To achieve transformative health care insights, AI must have access to comprehensive longitudinal health records (LHRs) that span clinical, genomic, nonclinical, wearable, and patient-generated data. Despite the extensive use of electronic medical records and widespread interoperability efforts, current health care organizations, electronic medical record vendors, and public agencies are not incentivized to develop and maintain complete LHRs. This paper explores the new paradigm of consumers as the common provenance and singular custodian of LHRs. With fully aligned intentions and ample time to dedicate to optimizing their health outcomes, patients and caregivers must assume the sole responsibility to manage or delegate aggregation of complete, accurate, and real-time LHRs. Significant gaps persist in empowering consumers to act as primary custodians of their health data and to aggregate their complete LHRs, a foundational requirement for the effective application of AI. Rare disease communities, leaders in participatory care, offer a compelling model for demonstrating how consumer-driven data aggregation can be achieved and underscore the need for improved policy frameworks and technological tools. The convergence of AI and LHRs promises to transform medicine by enhancing clinical decision-making, accelerating accurate diagnoses, and dramatically advancing our ability to understand and treat disease at an unprecedented pace.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".