Theoretical Foundations of Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Preventive Care Models in Family Medicine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study critically explores the theoretical foundations guiding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into preventive care models within family medicine. While AI offers substantial benefits in early disease prediction, risk stratification, and decision support, the research reveals a persistent gap between technical implementation and theoretical, ethical, and contextual frameworks. Most studies rely heavily on electronic health records (EHRs) from high-income countries, neglecting cultural diversity and real-world applicability. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Human-Centered AI (HCAI), and Explainable AI (XAI) frameworks offer valuable guidance but are inconsistently applied. Moreover, participatory design and equity-focused strategies are largely absent, raising concerns about inclusivity and long-term sustainability. The findings underscore the need for multi-theoretical, ethically grounded, and human-centered approaches to ensure that AI systems not only function effectively but also align with the holistic and patient-focused values of family medicine.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it