Towards learning healthcare systems in Italy: opportunities and challenges of AI at point-of-care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Italy, the growing enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare contrasts with significant infrastructural, cultural, and trust-related barriers hindering its real-world adoption. Moving beyond the hype requires a systems thinking approach, proposing the learning health system (LHS) framework as a structured path for integration. We highlight the complementary roles of AI models: traditional machine learning (ML) is proven for diagnostics and prognostics, while large language models (LLMs) excel at administrative tasks and can structure unstructured data to train robust ML tools. The LHS cycle reveals key challenges for Italy: moving from Practice-to-Data requires overcoming data fragmentation; from Data-to-Knowledge involves transforming data into insights while mitigating bias; and from Knowledge-to-Practice necessitates bridging the gap between evidence and clinical workflow by building trust and AI literacy. Ultimately, successful and equitable AI implementation depends on a holistic strategy combining infrastructure development, multidisciplinary collaboration, and robust governance to enhance the quality and sustainability of the national healthcare system.
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 | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".