SCALES-AI: A Supervision- and Context-Aligned Entrustment Framework for Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Emergency Medicine Education.

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
AEM Education and Training Pub Date : 2026-05-27 eCollection Date: 2026-06-01 DOI:10.1002/aet2.70195
Carl Preiksaitis, Garrison Nord, Joshua Davis, Rohit Sangal, Cassandra Mackey, Laura Oh, Christian Rose
{"title":"SCALES-AI: A Supervision- and Context-Aligned Entrustment Framework for Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Emergency Medicine Education.","authors":"Carl Preiksaitis, Garrison Nord, Joshua Davis, Rohit Sangal, Cassandra Mackey, Laura Oh, Christian Rose","doi":"10.1002/aet2.70195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The rapid entry of artificial intelligence (AI) into emergency medicine (EM) education demands a practical way to decide how much autonomy to grant specific tools for specific educational tasks. Existing frameworks are often too technical or too abstract to inform day-to-day decisions, leaving programs at risk of piecemeal adoption that could undermine core training principles and amplify bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed SCALES-AI (Supervision- and Context-Aligned Levels of Entrustment for AI in Education) through a three-phase process: a targeted literature synthesis extending recent scoping reviews on AI in medical education; three structured 90-minute virtual workshops with a nine-member multidisciplinary working group spanning six institutions and four U.S. geographic regions; and iterative refinement with national stakeholder groups, including an AI-focused subgroup of the SAEM Education Committee, the SAEM Informatics, Data Science & AI Interest Group, and the ACEP AI Task Force.</p><p><strong>Analysis: </strong>SCALES-AI rates AI tools-rather than trainees or faculty-on an entrustment scale for educational (not clinical) use. It links four Foundational Principles (human-centered augmentation, evidence-based scalability, context-specific adaptation, and an ethical foundation) to four Dimensions of Trustworthiness (Ability, Integrity, Benevolence, and Equity). These dimensions inform a five-level entrustment scale (0-5), ranging from \"not appropriate\" to \"full autonomy for low-stakes tasks,\" with supervision intensity and audit cadence matched to level. Re-evaluation is triggered by model, prompt, corpus, or guideline changes and by observed drift. We illustrate application through concrete EM scenarios, including documentation feedback, practice-question generation, simulation debrief support, and portfolio analytics.</p><p><strong>Recommendations: </strong>Programs should adopt graduated entrustment for AI tools, pairing each tool-task decision with explicit scope controls, supervision requirements, and pre-specified re-evaluation triggers. To support implementation and reproducibility, we provide a SCALES-AI Checklist to document tool-task ratings, supervision and scope controls, and monitoring plans, along with a SCALES-AI Inter-Rater Calibration Template to enable local reliability assessment. Although motivated by the high-stakes, time-pressured EM environment, SCALES-AI is generalizable across health professions education. Treating AI-tool trustworthiness as dynamic and context-dependent enables safe, equitable, and auditable adoption while preserving essential human elements of medical training.</p>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"10 3","pages":"e70195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13239239/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.70195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The rapid entry of artificial intelligence (AI) into emergency medicine (EM) education demands a practical way to decide how much autonomy to grant specific tools for specific educational tasks. Existing frameworks are often too technical or too abstract to inform day-to-day decisions, leaving programs at risk of piecemeal adoption that could undermine core training principles and amplify bias.

Methods: We developed SCALES-AI (Supervision- and Context-Aligned Levels of Entrustment for AI in Education) through a three-phase process: a targeted literature synthesis extending recent scoping reviews on AI in medical education; three structured 90-minute virtual workshops with a nine-member multidisciplinary working group spanning six institutions and four U.S. geographic regions; and iterative refinement with national stakeholder groups, including an AI-focused subgroup of the SAEM Education Committee, the SAEM Informatics, Data Science & AI Interest Group, and the ACEP AI Task Force.

Analysis: SCALES-AI rates AI tools-rather than trainees or faculty-on an entrustment scale for educational (not clinical) use. It links four Foundational Principles (human-centered augmentation, evidence-based scalability, context-specific adaptation, and an ethical foundation) to four Dimensions of Trustworthiness (Ability, Integrity, Benevolence, and Equity). These dimensions inform a five-level entrustment scale (0-5), ranging from "not appropriate" to "full autonomy for low-stakes tasks," with supervision intensity and audit cadence matched to level. Re-evaluation is triggered by model, prompt, corpus, or guideline changes and by observed drift. We illustrate application through concrete EM scenarios, including documentation feedback, practice-question generation, simulation debrief support, and portfolio analytics.

Recommendations: Programs should adopt graduated entrustment for AI tools, pairing each tool-task decision with explicit scope controls, supervision requirements, and pre-specified re-evaluation triggers. To support implementation and reproducibility, we provide a SCALES-AI Checklist to document tool-task ratings, supervision and scope controls, and monitoring plans, along with a SCALES-AI Inter-Rater Calibration Template to enable local reliability assessment. Although motivated by the high-stakes, time-pressured EM environment, SCALES-AI is generalizable across health professions education. Treating AI-tool trustworthiness as dynamic and context-dependent enables safe, equitable, and auditable adoption while preserving essential human elements of medical training.

scale - ai:将人工智能整合到急诊医学教育中的监督和情境一致的委托框架。
导读:人工智能(AI)迅速进入急诊医学(EM)教育领域,需要一种实用的方法来决定在多大程度上赋予特定教育任务的特定工具自主权。现有的框架往往过于技术性或过于抽象,无法为日常决策提供信息,使项目面临零零碎碎采用的风险,这可能会破坏核心培训原则并放大偏见。方法:我们通过三个阶段的过程开发了scale -AI(教育中人工智能的监督和情境一致的委托水平):有针对性的文献综合,扩展了最近对医学教育中人工智能的范围综述;三个结构化的90分钟的虚拟研讨会,由来自美国四个地理区域的六个机构的九名成员组成的多学科工作组;并与国家利益相关者团体进行迭代改进,包括SAEM教育委员会的以人工智能为重点的子小组,SAEM信息学,数据科学和人工智能兴趣小组以及ACEP人工智能工作组。分析:scale -AI对人工智能工具(而不是受训者或教师)进行教育(而不是临床)使用的委托评估。它将四个基本原则(以人为本的增强、基于证据的可扩展性、针对具体情况的适应和道德基础)与可信度的四个维度(能力、诚信、仁慈和公平)联系起来。这些维度构成了一个五级委托等级(0-5),范围从“不合适”到“对低风险任务的完全自主权”,监督强度和审计节奏与级别相匹配。重新评估是由模型、提示、语料库或指南的变化和观察到的漂移触发的。我们通过具体的EM场景来说明应用程序,包括文档反馈、实践问题生成、模拟汇报支持和投资组合分析。建议:程序应该对人工智能工具采用分级委托,将每个工具任务决策与明确的范围控制、监督要求和预先指定的重新评估触发器配对。为了支持实施和可重复性,我们提供了一个SCALES-AI清单来记录工具任务评级、监督和范围控制以及监测计划,以及一个SCALES-AI内部评级机构校准模板,以实现本地可靠性评估。尽管受到高风险、时间紧迫的新兴市场环境的激励,但SCALES-AI在整个卫生专业教育中都是通用的。将人工智能工具的可信度视为动态的和依赖于上下文的,可实现安全、公平和可审计的采用,同时保留医疗培训的基本人为因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书