Introducing the CARES Model: Integrating Artificial Intelligence, Medical Education, and Patient-Centered Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the delivery of patient-centred healthcare in Canada and around the globe. As AI becomes mainstream in daily clinical practice, it is increasingly critical to equip physicians and medical trainees with the skills to effectively integrate AI into patient-centered care. In Canada, medical education is guided by the CanMEDS framework, which is structured around seven CanMEDS roles: Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Leader, Health Advocate, Scholar, and Professional. Despite the growing influence of AI in healthcare, there is a notable absence of AI-specific competencies within medical education for critically evaluating AI tools, interpreting AI-generated outputs, and safely and ethically integrating AI into clinical decision-making. To bridge this gap, we suggest a new model for physicians and medical trainees to critically evaluate the use of AI in clinical practice, based on patient-centered principles. This model is based on the core concepts of Communication, Autonomy, Respect, Equity, and Safety, which together form the CARES model. Integrating the CARES model into medical education should adopt a constructivist approach, leveraging active learning, case-based scenarios, simulations, and real-world experiences to prepare learners for the complexities of AI in clinical practice. Our research suggests that the CanMEDS framework offers an ideal foundation to explore the core domains of the CARES model, which can be adopted and integrated into daily clinical practice to promote digital literacy. Importantly, the CARES model can be adapted to fit existing medical curricula and tailored to align with global efforts to integrate AI into medical education. Additionally, we have found that central to this approach is the incorporation of feedback loops from both learners and instructors to ensure a sustained focus on patient-centered care. Our findings highlight the opportunities presented by the CARES model to promote digital literacy among physicians and medical trainees in a novel way using the existing CanMEDS framework. By leveraging the flexibility of the CanMEDS framework, we hope to increase digital literacy among physicians and medical trainees. The CARES model represents a novel approach to prepare the next generation of healthcare providers to use AI safely and effectively in their practice while maintaining a patient-centered focus.
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 | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".