A participatory approach to deploy responsible artificial intelligence for diabetes prediction and prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have the potential to improve healthcare and public health. Although there has been success in AI for research uses, little progress has been made in implementing health-related AI technologies in health systems. Responsible AI for health systems requires engagement and co-design with health system partners, policymakers, and the community. Deploying responsible AI requires engaging stakeholders, particularly those affected by the technology. This commentary presents the importance of participatory approaches for responsible AI implementation. In this commentary, we discuss the planned use of participatory approaches to responsibly deploying validated machine learning models, with a specific case example of diabetes prediction models that can address the challenge of preventing and managing diabetes in a health system.. The participatory methods engage policy-, provider-, and community-level actors to deploy and implement the AI diabetes tools, inform how AI is implemented in health settings, and overcome common deployment barriers. The future of AI in health settings rests on fine-tuning these practices to enable trust, acceptability, and oversight of these technologies to be deeply established in health systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".