Education (Colleges & Universities)
Here's a look at documents from public, private and community colleges in the U.S.
Education (Colleges & Universities)
Featured Stories
W&L's Contact Committee Presents an Evening With Tim Tebow
LEXINGTON, Virginia, Sept. 23 -- Washington and Lee University issued the following news:
* * *
W&L's Contact Committee Presents an Evening with Tim Tebow
The former professional athlete and global nonprofit leader will speak on Oct. 1 in the Lenfest Center.
September 22, 2026
Washington and Lee University's Contact Committee is pleased to welcome Tim Tebow, former professional football player and entrepreneur, to campus for Parents and Family Weekend at 7 p.m. on Oct. 1 in Keller Theatre in the Lenfest Center for the Arts.
The event is free and open to the W&L community, and tickets are ... Show Full Article LEXINGTON, Virginia, Sept. 23 -- Washington and Lee University issued the following news: * * * W&L's Contact Committee Presents an Evening with Tim Tebow The former professional athlete and global nonprofit leader will speak on Oct. 1 in the Lenfest Center. September 22, 2026 Washington and Lee University's Contact Committee is pleased to welcome Tim Tebow, former professional football player and entrepreneur, to campus for Parents and Family Weekend at 7 p.m. on Oct. 1 in Keller Theatre in the Lenfest Center for the Arts. The event is free and open to the W&L community, and tickets arerequired. Tickets will be available to pick up outside Elrod Commons between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Sept. 23, and between 10:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sept. 24.
Tebow played three seasons in the National Football League and is a college football analyst with ESPN. He is a New York Times best-selling author of seven books, including "Through My Eyes" (2013) and, most recently, "Look Again" (2025). In 2010, he founded the Tim Tebow Foundation, which serves individuals in more than 100 countries through ministries focused on anti-human trafficking and child exploitation, orphan care and prevention, profound medical needs and special needs.
In his talk, Tebow will speak not only about his football career and accomplishments but also about purpose, resilience, leadership, character and the importance of using opportunities to make a difference in others' lives.
* * *
Original text here: https://columns.wlu.edu/wls-contact-committee-presents-an-evening-with-tim-tebow/
* * *
W&L's Contact Committee Presents an Evening with Tim Tebow
The former professional athlete and global nonprofit leader will speak on Oct. 1 in the Lenfest Center.
September 22, 2026
Washington and Lee University's Contact Committee is pleased to welcome Tim Tebow, former professional football player and entrepreneur, to campus for Parents and Family Weekend at 7 p.m. on Oct. 1 in Keller Theatre in the Lenfest Center for the Arts.
The event is free and open to the W&L community, and tickets are ... Show Full Article LEXINGTON, Virginia, Sept. 23 -- Washington and Lee University issued the following news: * * * W&L's Contact Committee Presents an Evening with Tim Tebow The former professional athlete and global nonprofit leader will speak on Oct. 1 in the Lenfest Center. September 22, 2026 Washington and Lee University's Contact Committee is pleased to welcome Tim Tebow, former professional football player and entrepreneur, to campus for Parents and Family Weekend at 7 p.m. on Oct. 1 in Keller Theatre in the Lenfest Center for the Arts. The event is free and open to the W&L community, and tickets arerequired. Tickets will be available to pick up outside Elrod Commons between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Sept. 23, and between 10:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sept. 24.
Tebow played three seasons in the National Football League and is a college football analyst with ESPN. He is a New York Times best-selling author of seven books, including "Through My Eyes" (2013) and, most recently, "Look Again" (2025). In 2010, he founded the Tim Tebow Foundation, which serves individuals in more than 100 countries through ministries focused on anti-human trafficking and child exploitation, orphan care and prevention, profound medical needs and special needs.
In his talk, Tebow will speak not only about his football career and accomplishments but also about purpose, resilience, leadership, character and the importance of using opportunities to make a difference in others' lives.
* * *
Original text here: https://columns.wlu.edu/wls-contact-committee-presents-an-evening-with-tim-tebow/
UNC-School of Medicine: First-of-Its-Kind Initiative Aims to Deliver AI to Rural and Critical Access Hospitals and Clinics in North Carolina
CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina, Sept. 23 -- The University of North Carolina School of Medicine issued the following news:
* * *
First-of-Its-Kind Initiative Aims to Deliver AI to Rural and Critical Access Hospitals and Clinics in North Carolina
September 22, 2026
Multimillion-dollar grant from The Duke Endowment will fund statewide program to help rural healthcare outlets safely adopt AI tools, strengthen finances and improve patient care across the state.
An innovative statewide collaboration of healthcare and educational leaders is now in place to help close the artificial intelligence divide ... Show Full Article CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina, Sept. 23 -- The University of North Carolina School of Medicine issued the following news: * * * First-of-Its-Kind Initiative Aims to Deliver AI to Rural and Critical Access Hospitals and Clinics in North Carolina September 22, 2026 Multimillion-dollar grant from The Duke Endowment will fund statewide program to help rural healthcare outlets safely adopt AI tools, strengthen finances and improve patient care across the state. An innovative statewide collaboration of healthcare and educational leaders is now in place to help close the artificial intelligence divideacross North Carolina and ensure all residents can access high-quality healthcare.
The North Carolina Collaborative Health AI Network (NC CHAIN) has received a $4.4 million, three-year grant from The Duke Endowment. The new statewide initiative is designed to help rural and resource-limited clinics and hospitals safely and effectively use health-related AI tools.
"Carolina's mission reaches every part of North Carolina, and partnerships like this are an important way we serve the state," said Lee H. Roberts, chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Artificial intelligence has tremendous potential to improve healthcare, and we want more patients and providers to benefit from that progress. This initiative will help turn that potential into practical tools that strengthen care. We are grateful to The Duke Endowment and our collaborative partners for making this effort possible."
NC CHAIN also reflects Carolina's broader commitment to advancing the responsible use of AI through collaboration, research and shared expertise.
"Adopting AI responsibly takes expertise, shared learning and a clear understanding of how these tools can best support healthcare providers and the patients they serve. Carolina brings established strength in AI literacy and workforce capacity building, and NC CHAIN carries that momentum to healthcare organizations across North Carolina, giving each the practical guidance to adopt AI in ways that fit their own patients and communities," said Saif Khairat, PhD, MPH, chief artificial intelligence officer and vice provost for AI at UNC-Chapel Hill.
By sharing tools and resources from larger healthcare institutions and adapting them through collaboration with rural and critical-access providers, NC CHAIN will draw on the unique expertise of North Carolina's healthcare workforce to help providers make informed decisions about how AI can best serve their patients and communities.
"Expansion of the digital divide is a very real and poorly addressed risk of the rapid growth of AI in healthcare," said David McSwain, MD, MPH, principal investigator of NC CHAIN and Chief Medical Informatics Officer at UNC Health. "This funding from The Duke Endowment lays the foundation for a statewide support infrastructure that leverages the immense digital health expertise of partners across North Carolina."
NC CHAIN aims to support health systems, community clinics, critical access hospitals and other health care organizations as they navigate the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
"Large systems like Duke Health and UNC Health have teams of data scientists, compliance officers and informatics experts who can evaluate and govern AI tools. Most rural hospitals and small practices do not," said Armando Bedoya, MD MMCi, co-investigator for NC CHAIN and Chief Data and Analytics Officer at Duke Health. "NC CHAIN is about taking the responsible AI frameworks we've already built and adapting them, along with a support structure, to the clinics and hospitals that are at greatest risk of being left behind."
NC CHAIN is designed as a multi-institutional collaborative, with participation from partners including UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke University, UNC Health, Duke Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC, the Duke Margolis Institute and multiple other state organizations.
"This collaborative is designed to scale and add new partners, including other major North Carolina health systems, and ultimately to expand the model to other states," said Brian Cass, Deputy Director for Data Analytics and Information Technology at the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC. "We're not trying to control how these tools are deployed, but to empower healthcare organizations and practices across North Carolina to leverage their unique expertise in support of our communities. There's nothing quite like it across the country today, and we believe it will establish the national gold standard for true statewide collaboration going forward."
* * *
About UNC Health
UNC Health is North Carolina's academic health system, dedicated to improving the health and well-being of all North Carolinians through patient care, education, research, and community engagement. With a statewide network of 20 hospitals, hundreds of clinics, and an affiliation with the UNC School of Medicine, UNC Health serves communities across the state with a mission-driven, not-for-profit approach focused on quality, access, and innovation.
* * *
Original text here: https://news.unchealthcare.org/2026/09/first-of-its-kind-initiative-aims-to-deliver-ai-to-rural-and-critical-access-hospitals-and-clinics-in-north-carolina/
* * *
First-of-Its-Kind Initiative Aims to Deliver AI to Rural and Critical Access Hospitals and Clinics in North Carolina
September 22, 2026
Multimillion-dollar grant from The Duke Endowment will fund statewide program to help rural healthcare outlets safely adopt AI tools, strengthen finances and improve patient care across the state.
An innovative statewide collaboration of healthcare and educational leaders is now in place to help close the artificial intelligence divide ... Show Full Article CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina, Sept. 23 -- The University of North Carolina School of Medicine issued the following news: * * * First-of-Its-Kind Initiative Aims to Deliver AI to Rural and Critical Access Hospitals and Clinics in North Carolina September 22, 2026 Multimillion-dollar grant from The Duke Endowment will fund statewide program to help rural healthcare outlets safely adopt AI tools, strengthen finances and improve patient care across the state. An innovative statewide collaboration of healthcare and educational leaders is now in place to help close the artificial intelligence divideacross North Carolina and ensure all residents can access high-quality healthcare.
The North Carolina Collaborative Health AI Network (NC CHAIN) has received a $4.4 million, three-year grant from The Duke Endowment. The new statewide initiative is designed to help rural and resource-limited clinics and hospitals safely and effectively use health-related AI tools.
"Carolina's mission reaches every part of North Carolina, and partnerships like this are an important way we serve the state," said Lee H. Roberts, chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Artificial intelligence has tremendous potential to improve healthcare, and we want more patients and providers to benefit from that progress. This initiative will help turn that potential into practical tools that strengthen care. We are grateful to The Duke Endowment and our collaborative partners for making this effort possible."
NC CHAIN also reflects Carolina's broader commitment to advancing the responsible use of AI through collaboration, research and shared expertise.
"Adopting AI responsibly takes expertise, shared learning and a clear understanding of how these tools can best support healthcare providers and the patients they serve. Carolina brings established strength in AI literacy and workforce capacity building, and NC CHAIN carries that momentum to healthcare organizations across North Carolina, giving each the practical guidance to adopt AI in ways that fit their own patients and communities," said Saif Khairat, PhD, MPH, chief artificial intelligence officer and vice provost for AI at UNC-Chapel Hill.
By sharing tools and resources from larger healthcare institutions and adapting them through collaboration with rural and critical-access providers, NC CHAIN will draw on the unique expertise of North Carolina's healthcare workforce to help providers make informed decisions about how AI can best serve their patients and communities.
"Expansion of the digital divide is a very real and poorly addressed risk of the rapid growth of AI in healthcare," said David McSwain, MD, MPH, principal investigator of NC CHAIN and Chief Medical Informatics Officer at UNC Health. "This funding from The Duke Endowment lays the foundation for a statewide support infrastructure that leverages the immense digital health expertise of partners across North Carolina."
NC CHAIN aims to support health systems, community clinics, critical access hospitals and other health care organizations as they navigate the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
"Large systems like Duke Health and UNC Health have teams of data scientists, compliance officers and informatics experts who can evaluate and govern AI tools. Most rural hospitals and small practices do not," said Armando Bedoya, MD MMCi, co-investigator for NC CHAIN and Chief Data and Analytics Officer at Duke Health. "NC CHAIN is about taking the responsible AI frameworks we've already built and adapting them, along with a support structure, to the clinics and hospitals that are at greatest risk of being left behind."
NC CHAIN is designed as a multi-institutional collaborative, with participation from partners including UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke University, UNC Health, Duke Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC, the Duke Margolis Institute and multiple other state organizations.
"This collaborative is designed to scale and add new partners, including other major North Carolina health systems, and ultimately to expand the model to other states," said Brian Cass, Deputy Director for Data Analytics and Information Technology at the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC. "We're not trying to control how these tools are deployed, but to empower healthcare organizations and practices across North Carolina to leverage their unique expertise in support of our communities. There's nothing quite like it across the country today, and we believe it will establish the national gold standard for true statewide collaboration going forward."
* * *
About UNC Health
UNC Health is North Carolina's academic health system, dedicated to improving the health and well-being of all North Carolinians through patient care, education, research, and community engagement. With a statewide network of 20 hospitals, hundreds of clinics, and an affiliation with the UNC School of Medicine, UNC Health serves communities across the state with a mission-driven, not-for-profit approach focused on quality, access, and innovation.
* * *
Original text here: https://news.unchealthcare.org/2026/09/first-of-its-kind-initiative-aims-to-deliver-ai-to-rural-and-critical-access-hospitals-and-clinics-in-north-carolina/
TAMU-CC Earns Three National Rankings in List of 2027 Best Colleges
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, Sept. 23 -- Texas AandM University Corpus Christi campus issued the following news:
* * *
TAMU-CC Earns Three National Rankings in List of 2027 Best Colleges
Carlos Adamez
September 22, 2026
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi is earning national recognition for the strength and breadth of its academic programs, with three undergraduate programs ranked among the nation's best in the U.S. News & World Report 2027 Best Colleges rankings.
Undergraduate programs in engineering, nursing, and computer science each earned national rankings, with all ... Show Full Article CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, Sept. 23 -- Texas AandM University Corpus Christi campus issued the following news: * * * TAMU-CC Earns Three National Rankings in List of 2027 Best Colleges Carlos Adamez September 22, 2026 CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi is earning national recognition for the strength and breadth of its academic programs, with three undergraduate programs ranked among the nation's best in the U.S. News & World Report 2027 Best Colleges rankings. Undergraduate programs in engineering, nursing, and computer science each earned national rankings, with allthree also placing among the top programs in Texas.
The rankings include:
* Undergraduate Engineering - Non-Doctorate: No. 106 (tied) nationally and No. 3 in Texas
* Undergraduate Nursing: No. 243 (tied) nationally and No. 6 in Texas
* Undergraduate Computer Science: No. 276 (tied) nationally and No. 6 in Texas
The recognition spans three academic disciplines that are closely connected to the needs of a growing region and an evolving workforce, highlighting the range of opportunities available to students at the Island University.
"We are incredibly proud to see three of our undergraduate programs recognized among the nation's best by U.S. News & World Report," said Kelly M. Miller, Ph.D., President and CEO. "These rankings reflect the quality of our academic programs and the commitment of our faculty and staff to creating meaningful educational experiences for our students. Most importantly, they reflect the preparation our graduates receive to make an impact in their professions and communities."
The College of Engineering and Computer Science earned national recognition in both undergraduate engineering and computer science. Its undergraduate engineering program ranked No. 106 nationally and No. 3 in Texas in the non-doctorate category, while its undergraduate computer science program ranked No. 276 nationally and No. 6 in Texas.
Students in these programs have opportunities to connect classroom learning with real-world applications through hands-on experiences, research, and projects designed to address complex challenges in technology and engineering.
The recognition comes as the college continues to expand its academic and research portfolio, including the recent addition of an Engineering Ph.D. program.
"As an institution, we are intentional about building academic programs that anticipate where technology and innovation are headed," said Catherine Rudowsky, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. "The recognition of our engineering and computer science programs is an encouraging reflection of that vision and the momentum behind these disciplines at the Island University."
The college's continued growth provides students with opportunities to pursue advanced study while contributing to research and innovation in fields that are shaping the future of technology and engineering.
The College of Nursing and Health Sciences also earned national recognition, with its undergraduate nursing program ranking No. 243 nationally and No. 6 in Texas.
The ranking comes as the college continues to prepare students for careers in a profession that plays an essential role in the health and well-being of communities throughout the Coastal Bend, South Texas, and beyond.
"Our nursing program reflects the importance we place on preparing graduates for a profession that has a direct and lasting impact on the health of our communities," Rudowsky said. "We are proud of the faculty and academic environment that support our nursing students, and this recognition provides an opportunity to celebrate the work happening across the College of Nursing and Health Sciences."
Through classroom instruction, simulation, and clinical experiences, nursing students build the knowledge and skills needed to provide compassionate, evidence-based care while responding to the evolving health care needs of diverse communities.
Together, the three national rankings reflect the breadth of academic programs at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi and the university's continued investment in preparing students for careers in high-demand fields.
"We are focused on continuing to build programs that meet the needs of our students, our region, and a rapidly changing workforce," Miller said. "These rankings are an important moment to celebrate, but they also reinforce our commitment to continually raising the bar for student success and academic excellence at the Island University."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tamucc.edu/news/2026/09/images/tamu-cc-earns-three-national-rankings.php
* * *
TAMU-CC Earns Three National Rankings in List of 2027 Best Colleges
Carlos Adamez
September 22, 2026
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi is earning national recognition for the strength and breadth of its academic programs, with three undergraduate programs ranked among the nation's best in the U.S. News & World Report 2027 Best Colleges rankings.
Undergraduate programs in engineering, nursing, and computer science each earned national rankings, with all ... Show Full Article CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, Sept. 23 -- Texas AandM University Corpus Christi campus issued the following news: * * * TAMU-CC Earns Three National Rankings in List of 2027 Best Colleges Carlos Adamez September 22, 2026 CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi is earning national recognition for the strength and breadth of its academic programs, with three undergraduate programs ranked among the nation's best in the U.S. News & World Report 2027 Best Colleges rankings. Undergraduate programs in engineering, nursing, and computer science each earned national rankings, with allthree also placing among the top programs in Texas.
The rankings include:
* Undergraduate Engineering - Non-Doctorate: No. 106 (tied) nationally and No. 3 in Texas
* Undergraduate Nursing: No. 243 (tied) nationally and No. 6 in Texas
* Undergraduate Computer Science: No. 276 (tied) nationally and No. 6 in Texas
The recognition spans three academic disciplines that are closely connected to the needs of a growing region and an evolving workforce, highlighting the range of opportunities available to students at the Island University.
"We are incredibly proud to see three of our undergraduate programs recognized among the nation's best by U.S. News & World Report," said Kelly M. Miller, Ph.D., President and CEO. "These rankings reflect the quality of our academic programs and the commitment of our faculty and staff to creating meaningful educational experiences for our students. Most importantly, they reflect the preparation our graduates receive to make an impact in their professions and communities."
The College of Engineering and Computer Science earned national recognition in both undergraduate engineering and computer science. Its undergraduate engineering program ranked No. 106 nationally and No. 3 in Texas in the non-doctorate category, while its undergraduate computer science program ranked No. 276 nationally and No. 6 in Texas.
Students in these programs have opportunities to connect classroom learning with real-world applications through hands-on experiences, research, and projects designed to address complex challenges in technology and engineering.
The recognition comes as the college continues to expand its academic and research portfolio, including the recent addition of an Engineering Ph.D. program.
"As an institution, we are intentional about building academic programs that anticipate where technology and innovation are headed," said Catherine Rudowsky, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. "The recognition of our engineering and computer science programs is an encouraging reflection of that vision and the momentum behind these disciplines at the Island University."
The college's continued growth provides students with opportunities to pursue advanced study while contributing to research and innovation in fields that are shaping the future of technology and engineering.
The College of Nursing and Health Sciences also earned national recognition, with its undergraduate nursing program ranking No. 243 nationally and No. 6 in Texas.
The ranking comes as the college continues to prepare students for careers in a profession that plays an essential role in the health and well-being of communities throughout the Coastal Bend, South Texas, and beyond.
"Our nursing program reflects the importance we place on preparing graduates for a profession that has a direct and lasting impact on the health of our communities," Rudowsky said. "We are proud of the faculty and academic environment that support our nursing students, and this recognition provides an opportunity to celebrate the work happening across the College of Nursing and Health Sciences."
Through classroom instruction, simulation, and clinical experiences, nursing students build the knowledge and skills needed to provide compassionate, evidence-based care while responding to the evolving health care needs of diverse communities.
Together, the three national rankings reflect the breadth of academic programs at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi and the university's continued investment in preparing students for careers in high-demand fields.
"We are focused on continuing to build programs that meet the needs of our students, our region, and a rapidly changing workforce," Miller said. "These rankings are an important moment to celebrate, but they also reinforce our commitment to continually raising the bar for student success and academic excellence at the Island University."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tamucc.edu/news/2026/09/images/tamu-cc-earns-three-national-rankings.php
Monmouth University Debuts in U.S. News National Universities Rankings
WEST LONG BRANCH, New Jersey, Sept. 23 -- Monmouth University issued the following news:
* * *
Monmouth University Debuts in U.S. News National Universities Rankings
September 22, 2026
Monmouth University has joined the ranks of the nation's leading institutions in the 2027 U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges.
Monmouth placed No. 169 among 422 National Universities, joining the U.S. News top-tier category for the first time in University history. Monmouth also placed No. 83 among Top Private National Universities, a national ranking U.S. News introduced this year.
The national milestone ... Show Full Article WEST LONG BRANCH, New Jersey, Sept. 23 -- Monmouth University issued the following news: * * * Monmouth University Debuts in U.S. News National Universities Rankings September 22, 2026 Monmouth University has joined the ranks of the nation's leading institutions in the 2027 U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges. Monmouth placed No. 169 among 422 National Universities, joining the U.S. News top-tier category for the first time in University history. Monmouth also placed No. 83 among Top Private National Universities, a national ranking U.S. News introduced this year. The national milestonecloses Monmouth's steady ascent through the Regional Universities North category, going from a debut ranking of 76 in 2005, and climbing to 13 by 2026, reflecting a strong record of academic success that led to this moment.
Monmouth's move to the National Universities category follows its 2025 designation as a Research College and University by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, one of only four private institutions in New Jersey to earn the distinction. The University has also invested in signature academic and cultural initiatives, including the Urban Coast Institute and the Bruce Springsteen Center for American Music, and broadened its reach through national partnerships and Division I athletics as a member of the Coastal Athletic Association.
"Our history of dynamic growth and development, expanding, and enhancing the quality of academic programs, strengthening the academic profile of incoming students, and earning a national research designation, has made Monmouth a first-choice destination school, affirming the growing leadership and influence of our faculty, staff, and students," said Monmouth University President Patrick F. Leahy. "Being recognized as a National University confirms that that our efforts and our achievements resonate well beyond our region."
Among all National Universities, Monmouth also ranked No. 68 on the U.S. News list of Top Performers on Social Mobility, a measure built on how successfully an institution enrolls and graduates students who receive federal Pell Grants, awarded to students with significant financial need. The results reflect an access mission that has deepened as the academic profile has risen: the University welcomed a record number of first-generation and/or low-income students to its Class of 2030, which also holds the distinction of the highest incoming grade point average (3.68) of any incoming class in University history.
Monmouth additionally ranked No. 164 in Best Colleges for Veterans and No. 172 in Best Value Schools.
"Monmouth's story has always been about mission-driven academic excellence and continuous improvement," continued Leahy. "The National University designation continues our evolution from a small junior college founded during the Great Depression to a national, doctoral-granting, Division I, research university recognized among the best institutions in the world."
Monmouth University's full 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings profile is available online (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/monmouth-university-2616/overall-rankings).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.monmouth.edu/news/monmouth-university-debuts-in-u-s-news-national-universities-rankings/
* * *
Monmouth University Debuts in U.S. News National Universities Rankings
September 22, 2026
Monmouth University has joined the ranks of the nation's leading institutions in the 2027 U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges.
Monmouth placed No. 169 among 422 National Universities, joining the U.S. News top-tier category for the first time in University history. Monmouth also placed No. 83 among Top Private National Universities, a national ranking U.S. News introduced this year.
The national milestone ... Show Full Article WEST LONG BRANCH, New Jersey, Sept. 23 -- Monmouth University issued the following news: * * * Monmouth University Debuts in U.S. News National Universities Rankings September 22, 2026 Monmouth University has joined the ranks of the nation's leading institutions in the 2027 U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges. Monmouth placed No. 169 among 422 National Universities, joining the U.S. News top-tier category for the first time in University history. Monmouth also placed No. 83 among Top Private National Universities, a national ranking U.S. News introduced this year. The national milestonecloses Monmouth's steady ascent through the Regional Universities North category, going from a debut ranking of 76 in 2005, and climbing to 13 by 2026, reflecting a strong record of academic success that led to this moment.
Monmouth's move to the National Universities category follows its 2025 designation as a Research College and University by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, one of only four private institutions in New Jersey to earn the distinction. The University has also invested in signature academic and cultural initiatives, including the Urban Coast Institute and the Bruce Springsteen Center for American Music, and broadened its reach through national partnerships and Division I athletics as a member of the Coastal Athletic Association.
"Our history of dynamic growth and development, expanding, and enhancing the quality of academic programs, strengthening the academic profile of incoming students, and earning a national research designation, has made Monmouth a first-choice destination school, affirming the growing leadership and influence of our faculty, staff, and students," said Monmouth University President Patrick F. Leahy. "Being recognized as a National University confirms that that our efforts and our achievements resonate well beyond our region."
Among all National Universities, Monmouth also ranked No. 68 on the U.S. News list of Top Performers on Social Mobility, a measure built on how successfully an institution enrolls and graduates students who receive federal Pell Grants, awarded to students with significant financial need. The results reflect an access mission that has deepened as the academic profile has risen: the University welcomed a record number of first-generation and/or low-income students to its Class of 2030, which also holds the distinction of the highest incoming grade point average (3.68) of any incoming class in University history.
Monmouth additionally ranked No. 164 in Best Colleges for Veterans and No. 172 in Best Value Schools.
"Monmouth's story has always been about mission-driven academic excellence and continuous improvement," continued Leahy. "The National University designation continues our evolution from a small junior college founded during the Great Depression to a national, doctoral-granting, Division I, research university recognized among the best institutions in the world."
Monmouth University's full 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings profile is available online (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/monmouth-university-2616/overall-rankings).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.monmouth.edu/news/monmouth-university-debuts-in-u-s-news-national-universities-rankings/
Michigan Medicine: AI, Well-Being and the Human Connection
ANN ARBOR, Michigan, Sept. 23 -- Michigan Medicine, the academic medical center of the University of Michigan, issued the following news release:
* * *
AI, Well-Being and the Human Connection
Building AI literacy while protecting the empathy, wisdom and connection at the heart of care
September 22, 2026
Artificial intelligence is changing healthcare -- but what does that mean for the people who deliver and receive care? Cornelius James, M.D., FACP, FNAP, a clinical assistant professor and primary care physician at for U-M Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, joins Chief Well-Being ... Show Full Article ANN ARBOR, Michigan, Sept. 23 -- Michigan Medicine, the academic medical center of the University of Michigan, issued the following news release: * * * AI, Well-Being and the Human Connection Building AI literacy while protecting the empathy, wisdom and connection at the heart of care September 22, 2026 Artificial intelligence is changing healthcare -- but what does that mean for the people who deliver and receive care? Cornelius James, M.D., FACP, FNAP, a clinical assistant professor and primary care physician at for U-M Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, joins Chief Well-BeingOfficer Elizabeth Harry, M.D., to explore AI literacy, clinical judgment, governance, education and well-being.
They discuss how healthcare can embrace new technologies while protecting human connection, empathy, wisdom and the meaningful moments that define care.
Episode guest:
Cornelius James, M.D., FACP, FNAP
Learn more about how the Office of Well-Being aids it team members and brings a culture of belonging, resilience and support.
Transcript
Elizabeth Harry:
Welcome. I'm Dr. Liz Harry, and this is the Well-Being at Michigan Medicine Podcast. Welcome to our discussion on AI in healthcare. I'm thrilled today to introduce Dr. Cornelius James, assistant professor in internal medicine, pediatrics and learning health sciences here at the University of Michigan. Dr. James is not only a practicing primary care, but also a leader in AI and machine learning education and implementation in clinical practice. He heads the DATA-MD team, which is preparing clinicians for the AI-powered future and developing web-based curricula to bring interprofessional perspectives, including patients, into the conversation.
As AI tools become deeply embedded in healthcare, recent reports like the JAMA Summit Report on AI, which came out in October of 2025, highlight our urgent need for stronger systems in evaluation, monitoring, governance, infrastructure, and incentives. At the same time, there are real world risks, like a London School of Economics analysis showing a Gemma generated summary in social care may downplay women's health needs and research in PNAS warning that large language models often misestimate wellbeing in underrepresented contexts.
Today, we'll dive deep into these challenges, what it takes to become an AI literate clinician, how we should rethink medical training, the incentive shaping health system choices and the practical tools and guardrails needed to ensure AI delivers real benefit without unintended harms. Welcome, Dr. James. Can I call you Cornelius?
Cornelius James:
Of course, only if I can call you Liz.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yes, yes, absolutely.
Cornelius James:
Okay, great. I really appreciate the introduction, Liz, and I'm very excited to be here and honored to be here.
Elizabeth Harry:
Oh, I'm so excited. This is just a great topic. It feels like it's top of mind. You can't get on anything these days without seeing a post about AI or a conversation about it. And so as we think about, one of the big parts of your role that I think is so cool is really thinking about how we build AI literate clinicians, how we train the current generation, the next generation of clinicians, so that they know how to interact with this technology in a really effective way. So first off, what does that mean and what should they be able to do next week?
Cornelius James:
Absolutely. Really appreciate the question. It's challenging because, as medical educators, as clinicians, and I say more specifically as medical educators, it's challenging because these tools are already out there. They're already in the wild. So in some respects, students, learners, et cetera, are using these tools, unfortunately, without very much training. And that's okay. And I'm sure that we have a lot to learn from those that are currently using the tools, but there's also some risk associated with taking that approach.
So we usually see people using generative AI or using large language models, OpenEvidence, et cetera, to inform clinical decisions and so on. And that's okay as long as there's a healthy level of skepticism or a person being inclined to always ensure that the outputs that they're receiving from these models are accurate. So that's one part of things.
But there's other AI out there. And unfortunately, I think generative AI, really cool, really exciting, it's important, but it's not the only type of AI that's out there. Generative AI comes from a long history of work that's been done on other types of AI models, and those are tools that we're going to have to interact with as well as clinicians. And we have to start preparing folks to interact with certainly generative AI. That's going to require learning how to collaborate or interact with the tool, so to speak.
But when it comes to those other models, there's other things that have to be considered. And some of it'll overlap with what we do for generative AI. And one thing I'll say is I usually say when it comes to all of these models, you're not going to have to be a developer, you're not going to have to be a world-class computer scientist or engineer or anything like that, but I often compare it to a randomized controlled trial.
So if you're going to implement or use whatever is being studied in a randomized controlled trial, as a clinician, you should be able to read a randomized controlled trial, determine whether or not there's a high risk of bias, internal validity, external validity, generalizability, et cetera. Being able to do that, in my opinion, is going to be very important, meaning from a randomized control trial from a just clinical intervention perspective. But then when it comes to AI, yeah, again, similarly, you're not going to have to develop a model, but to understand where a model's data comes from, who developed it, why was it developed, et cetera, to ask those types of questions, that's what clinicians are going to have to be able to do so that they can effectively integrate the outputs of these tools into their clinical decision making.
Elizabeth Harry:
And so you mentioned large language models and generative AI as sort of one category. Give us an example of something else that you see in a different category that you think might be on the horizon for clinicians to start thinking about how they would engage with it.
Cornelius James:
Interesting. So I can give you one that's not even on the horizon, but that is actually out there in clinical practice sort of in the wild. So there's the Epic Sepsis Model as an example or deterioration models, those are widely deployed, available. So the Epic Sepsis Model, you have a patient that's hospitalized or one of your patients is hospitalized, you get a risk score that pops up saying that this person is at risk of sepsis. Well, what does that mean for my particular patient? How do I interpret that? How do I be the human in the loop to say, well, that doesn't quite make sense for my patient, or I just saw Mr. Jones, I just reviewed his history, that doesn't quite fit with this picture? Or you know what? I didn't think about that particular point, so maybe I do need to think a little bit more about that or monitor this value a little bit more.
Because we can go in either direction. We can say, okay, I'm going to either automation bias, okay, person's at risk for sepsis, I'm going to start antibiotics, send this person to the ICU. Or I'm going to be a bit more nuanced, and say, I know my patient well, I feel confident in my clinical experience, my team's experience, the input that I'm giving, let's monitor this a little bit and then we can make decisions from there. So that's one example in an inpatient setting.
In an outpatient setting, diabetic retinopathy. So we know that was the first autonomous FDA approved model to screen for diabetic retinopathy that is again out there. And if a person has a high risk or the model suggests that there's a high risk of diabetic retinopathy, do you just refer? Is there, again, that automation bias, or is there that under reliance where you're not trusting it for a given reason? And that's where background, experience, reading, understanding of how these tools work is really important. And those two models, the retinopathy model, that's a deep learning model. It's not generative AI. The other models that I mentioned are predictive models that are not generative AI.
Elizabeth Harry:
What I love about your analogy that you're tying it to being able to understand a randomized control trial is that, as a clinician, everyone doesn't need to have the skills to run a randomized control trial, but it reminds me of that study, parachutes don't decrease the risk of mortality when jumping outside of a plane. But then if you look at the methods, they had the people jumping off the wing on a grounded plane. And the importance is that you have to know how to read a study because the click bait can be really misleading if you don't have that skill.
And what I'm really hearing you say is AI is the same. That if you don't understand some of the background, some of how the sausage is made, if you will, then you might get in this very sort of automated habit that could put your patients at risk because you're over testing or overprescribing or alternatively not having that nuanced skill. And so some terms that I hear thrown around when we talk about medical education and our learners, particularly around AI, is this sort of skilling, de-skilling, never skilling. In the AI era, what do these terms mean to you? And when you think of them, what should we as educators be thinking about? What should our learners be thinking about? And do they apply to more than just our learners too?
Cornelius James:
Appreciate that question. It's something that I've been thinking about for a while, and my understanding or thoughts about this have sort of evolved. I will say broadly, there will be a necessary de-skilling that's going to be important. And I believe that that's something that's very challenging to think about, to come to grips with.
Elizabeth Harry:
And what does that mean, a necessary de-skilling?
Cornelius James:
That there will be some things that are going to... We don't need to know the Krebs cycle anymore as an example. So hopefully medical students out there are clapping and very happy because I'm saying things like that will probably no longer be necessary.
But at the same time, we are sort of trying to skate to where the puck is going in that we know what these tools in many respects are capable of, but we don't know what it's going to look like in real world clinical practice across the board. So the necessary de-skilling will involve those things that we absolutely should stop teaching our learners now, right now. And in my opinion, there are things that are out there like that. I mentioned the Krebs cycle kind of jokingly, but there are other things out there that I think they're sort of those fatted calves as some would call them where we don't really want to sacrifice those things because of various reasons, whether it is because of professional identity or other things, it's understandable and I want to be sensitive to that, understanding that, but it's going to be important if we ultimately want to take good care of our patients.
And then there's going to be harmful de-skilling where we should not. There were some things, some blind spots, so to speak, that we didn't sort of account for that's going to... And I would say that, it's as important, but that's what we definitely want to make sure that we avoid. And the same is true for never skilling. Never skilling, it could be either harmful or good, again, in that there are some things that we should never teach students again, but then we also want to make sure that we are teaching things that definitely need to be taught and that we avoid that harmful never skilling.
So it's not going to be easy. Christy Boscardin, Brian Gin, and Raja-Elie Abdulnour wrote a great paper in NEJM. It was an editorial describing what this could potentially look like. And they were very thoughtful in thinking, yes, there are some things where we have to think about sort of where learners are in their trajectory where we do say, make sure that they have been skilled here so that we can now start to prepare them or allow them to interact with these tools just so that we can make sure that they have that foundation that's going to be necessary if there's a failure of technologies and so on and so on.
But the failure of technologies, I get it, but I also caution against just saying we have to always teach these things because you never know if technology's going to break down. I often give the example of, well, I don't live right around the corner from my clinical office because I'm concerned my car is going to break down or I didn't learn to ride a horse so that I can make sure that I can continue to get to work. I'm going to make decisions that are ultimately, yeah, there's some risk involved with it, but ultimately it's going to, in the grand scheme of things, serve me, my family, et cetera, well.
Elizabeth Harry:
And so there's this tension of this idea of do we have to sort of have learners hold off on using these tools until there's kind of a baseline? I think I've even seen this graph and I can't think of, it was in a talk I saw, so I can't cite the paper, but maybe it's the one you're describing, where if you're at this certain knowledge level, then it is an accelerant.
And I've felt that way in my clinical care. I feel very confident that using some of these resources, my patients are getting much better care with the questions I'm able to ask and the things I'm able to check. And this idea that if you have not hit this sort of level of competency, then you could fall into this never skilling risk. What are your thoughts about that concept?
Cornelius James:
Yeah, absolutely. And we are certainly talking about the same paper. And I do believe that a lot of that is important. And there has to be a trust between students and/or learners or residents and house officers, fellows, there has to be a trust so that they'll believe that we're doing what's best for them because they're smart. They're super smart human beings. And eventually the resident or the medical student is going to say, "I could spend so much more time with my patients. I could look them in the eye more. I could be more well or have better wellbeing if I didn't have to be so concerned about writing this note."
So that, in my opinion, it's one of those things where I'm not suggesting that we move in one direction versus another, but those are things that we sort of have to weigh. Yes, I understand that there's literature suggesting that writing or putting pen to paper or typing, it's helpful for developing clinical reasoning and formatting plans and truly understanding the patient. But what's the balance? What's the trade off when it comes to learner wellness and their engagement, and also preparing them for what the real world is going to actually be like?
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah. I love this. An analogous thing that I've spent some time thinking about is we teach people to present patients. I haven't presented a patient since I left residency. When was the last time you had to present a patient? And yet we spend so much in internal medicine, like half our day, training people to do a skill that they will never ever do again in the real world.
And I find it so fascinating some of the historic, and we could talk, it's a whole other discussion about why do we do presentations, and where did that come from and why do we still do them in the way that we do them? But I think this idea, and I love your analogy about the horse and the car and where you live, this idea of are we sort of insisting, is it like cursive, are we insisting that they learn something that they're not ever going to use, or is there some mandatory minimum threshold?
Cornelius James:
Yeah, I agree. And unfortunately, I don't believe we have the answers to all of those questions. But I've also stated in the past, we're trying to sort of skate to where the puck is going, but moving in that direction, because this is a big, huge enterprise, certainly here at Michigan Medicine, but healthcare in general, medical education is huge. And to get it to shift or pivot, that's like moving the Earth or turning the Earth. So getting that to happen is really challenging. But I say that because it's going to take bold initiatives, in my opinion, to get us to where we need to be when it comes to engaging with these technologies.
This is our Flexnerian moment, so to speak. So Flexner wrote that report back in 1910 or so, commissioned by, I believe the AMA and the Carnegie Foundation, but wrote that report because medical education was in a horrible state at that point. You barely had to even have a college degree to be a doctor. So I don't agree with everything that happened in the Flexner report because there was some racist things that happened there too. But it also laid the foundation for things like the biomedical model, which we still use, and also ensuring that learners are able to engage in the clinical environment because that's what they're going to be doing. That was a monumental shift for medical education and for healthcare at that time. I believe we are in a similar moment right now with AI where we can sort of ignore it, but it's happening for sure.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah. And it's interesting because there's people kind of all over the spectrum on that. There's people that are like, "Oh, maybe it's a bubble." It feels like there's no way this could be a bubble. And then there is dialogue of the world will never be the same. And really our ability to deliver effective care, sustain our profession. When I think about wellbeing, I think about people being able to come and do the job that they meant to do that gives them meaning and purpose, care for others, in a way that doesn't detract from their own ability to also care for themselves. And see this as an opportunity to facilitate that.
Cornelius James:
100%. 100%. The challenge though, in my opinion, is going to be the care and what that looks like. I suspect that what it means to be a clinician, to be a healthcare provider, is going to be a bit different. It's no longer going to be encyclopedic knowledge. It's going to be important for us to have these facts to move science forward, et cetera, to know, to have great medical knowledge. But to care, to team, to be empathic. Those are going to be changes where we're going to say that is a great clinician because they're able to communicate well, they're able to team well, they're able to collaborate, they're able to critically think, critically appraise.
Those are going to be things that are going to be really important relative to what's been emphasized in the past around memorization, rote knowledge. You know what I mean? And it's going to sort of change. I don't want to be hyperbolic here, but professional identity and who chooses to become a doctor, a nurse, a pharmacist, et cetera, this is going to have a major impact on that even, in my opinion.
Elizabeth Harry:
What I love about what you're saying is that, in some ways the technology puts the human connection back at the forefront.
Cornelius James:
100%, 100%. And that is what a lot of my work is, I try to gear it toward. I try to start a lot of the conversations that I have with the old Peabody quote, the care of the patient, the science of medicine and the art of medicine, not antagonistic, but complimentary. And enforcing and encouraging that clinician-patient relationship, making that stronger.
It pains me at times that I can't go to more patient funerals to be with their family. That there's not enough time for me to, when appropriate and when well received, to give a patient a hug, to tell them I'm praying for you, or let's pray together if that's what they want. Because I'm so busy with so many other things that are not really patient care related, like finishing a note or checking a in-basket message and so on and so on. I'm rambling now. I'm sorry.
Elizabeth Harry:
No, but it ties beautifully. I mean, we actually had Dr. Sanjay Saint on many episodes ago talking about the Sacred Moments work. We can put a link in the show notes to that particular episode, but that's what you're naming is the ability to create space for these sacred moments in healthcare. And then we had Dr. Vic Strecher on talking about purpose, and create more space for the things that bring purpose.
And I think that's better for everybody involved, ourselves as clinicians, our patients, ourselves as clinician patients, because we also have recently talked about that. And it sounds like, so there was this report in JAMA, which seemed to be kind of a big moment in trying to summarize where we're at. And my read of it is that it basically says what we're saying here. It's going to transform healthcare. But one of my takeaways from it is that maybe our evaluation and our oversight systems and our governance aren't ready. And I'm curious your take on that and where are you seeing that gap most critically, and what do we need to do to try to address it?
Cornelius James:
So again, appreciate that question. Governance oversight at both the national and even international levels, extremely important. Oversight at the local level, very important. Nicholson Price wrote a great paper in Nature describing this collaborative governance that's going to be necessary. I would suggest taking a look at that if you can. It was written in 2023 or so. But it's basically suggesting that the federal government should have a responsibility to say, these are the policies, these are the guardrails, these are the things that we are going to regulate, are not going to regulate.
And then you have local committees because they know their environment, they know their patients, their populations, their culture, et cetera. They're able to sort of say, let's take these practices, make sure that we're meeting them, but we have to also make sure we're tailoring what we're doing to our particular population. So the governance there is important.
The work that I do is a bit more meso macro in that I'm thinking a bit more about the oversight of the practicing frontline clinician. Because ultimately they're going to be the ones responsible for making decisions around these tools, and making sure that they are properly equipped to make those decisions, whether it's through initial training and education in medical school or residency or whatever professional school that a person's going through, but then also amongst teams. How does this change team dynamics now? How are these conversations taking place now that we've got a tool, perhaps we see a shared output from a model? Well, how do we all communicate or talk about that? What does the oversight of that technology or that particular output look like and how do we come together as a healthcare team to apply this to our patient to make sure that they're receiving the best care?
So I believe generally speaking, that middle level that I just mentioned, is probably where we're doing a bit better. And I know Michigan specifically is doing very well in that middle level with the local governance, the clinical intelligence committee, which I'm honored to sit on. Great. I'm there when we're vetting these tools and ensuring that they are what they should be, what they need to be, they're going to be helpful.
But it's that federal level that's challenging that we really can't do a lot about in some respects. I know there are things that we can do, but that's challenging. But then there's that micro level that is, I believe we need to pay a bit more... Those are probably going to be the harder levels to address that federal level and that micro level. In my opinion, those are going to be the biggest lifts, so to speak, when it comes to governance.
Elizabeth Harry:
And it seems like part of the skilling and also part of that micro level is really shifting our competencies or our capabilities from generating ourself, generating a note, or generating things, to sort of evaluating and reviewing, and the ability to be very discerning reviewers rather than sort of blank slate generators. Is that fair?
Cornelius James:
With proper balance. So in that summit, that JAMA Summit Report, they described this algorithmovigilance, which is great. Julia Adler-Milstein out at UCSF wrote a great paper about that as well. In that paper, she mentioned, yeah, clinicians are going to have to be vigilant, but we can get to a point where now it becomes overwhelming that they have to check everything. So we also don't want these technologies to be deployed or implemented in a way where clinicians are like, "I'm spending so much time reviewing the results and making sure that they add up. I'm trying to be vigilant, but now that's sort of taking the place of whatever I was doing before." So there's going to have to be that vigilance for sure, but how do we balance it is going to really be key.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah, It's interesting because even when we've looked at the ambient documentation data, people's self-reported burnout has declined and their perception of cognitive load appears to have declined, but this sort of work after work seems to vary. Some self-reported work after work or sort of perceived work home conflict seems to go down. But to me, it seems that there's a little bit of a mixed signal when you actually look at the data in Epic of how long are they spending that we're slightly shifting where the work is maybe because of this phenomenon you're talking about.
Cornelius James:
That's interesting. I guess as you were speaking, so I do some qualitative work, and it would actually be interesting because, and I'll speak for myself, if I'm doing work at home that I believe is meaningful, that I really believe is moving the needle and helping people, I guess I don't know that I'd mind as much. Now you'd have to ask my wife and kids how much they mind, but I don't know that I would mind that. So it would be interesting to know the quality of that work that's happening at home. Do you feel that improvement when it comes to burnout and wellness and wellbeing, but do you still have that same amount of time that you're working at home, but are you doing something that's meaningful? That's something that would be interesting to me.
Elizabeth Harry:
And do you have a sense of autonomy? So I always joke with my team because they do look at signal data and they do look at how are clinics doing in terms of this. And I always joke with them, don't look at my pajama time because I do almost all of my kind of clinical care, if I'm not actually in clinic after hours, just because of the way that my life is structured and my day job, if you will, takes up this part. And so then I do that, big change, it takes a lot of time. But I make that choice. And so it doesn't contribute to burnout for me because I can come home and have dinner with the kids and get them to bed and then look at the things. And that's okay with me because I feel a sense of autonomy around it. And so I think that question of autonomy and control comes into play there as well.
I think you've been teaching us a lot already. So we've talked about a little bit between what an LLM is and what generative AI is versus some of these deep learning models or kind of predictive models. Another area that you and I have messaged about and talked about a little bit is this idea of an open model versus a closed model. Could you teach us a little bit about what is the difference between those two things, both sort of technically and operationally?
Cornelius James:
Sure. So I'll use some brand names here if that's okay. So your open models are going to be things like your Geminis, your ChatGPTs, your Claudes. So those are huge models that are foundation models that have been pre-trained on large amounts of data. And then they've been fine-tuned for various purposes, image generation, language, maybe multiple things. So they are trained, they're pre-trained, fine-tuned, deployed, that's it. No one has access to what data they used, architecture, weights, et cetera. It is closed. If you want to access it or use it at your institution in a special, you can use an API, but you're not going to go in there and manipulate data, manipulate weights, et cetera, et cetera. So that's what closed models are.
Your open models are going to be, I'll use again some brand names here, your Gemmas or Llama, right? Or for a medical example, there's something called Meditron that has been trained or pre-trained on large amounts of medical data. So those models are actually pre-trained, and it's going to sort of vary or there's a range of openness, so to speak. So maybe one shares their data or their architecture or their weight, but maybe not all of that.
So those models are going to be a bit more flexible, a bit more transparent. Flexible in that, yes, we can take this model, and we can fine tune it in a way that we want to use it in our setting. And we know what's going on in many respects with this particular model because we've done the work to fine tune it in a way that's going to be beneficial for us. So it's flexible in that way, but it's again, also transparent that we know sort of what the... You could say that there's more perhaps, yeah, I'll just use the word transparency here when it comes to what's actually put into developing those types of models.
Elizabeth Harry:
And it seems to me that, as an individual, our frontline clinician either has access to what their organization puts forward, which an organization may engage with one of these more open models, or it seems like they have access to these sort of closed, large models. Is that fair?
Cornelius James:
Okay. So the proprietary model or the closed models, they're very smart because they want everyone to use them. So yes, you can have access to what your institution sort of endorses. Yes, we have Copilot in our Microsoft suite. So there's that. But generally, and this is one of the things that's amazing about AI, is that everybody has access to it, patients, et cetera. So yeah, you can have these closed models or access those, but on the other hand, everybody can access the open models and manipulate them if they have the compute power and so on, if they have the hardware and so on.
But they can take those and they can fine tune them in a way that's most appropriate for what they want to do. So you do have the institutional things, but people also have access to, there's a free version of just about all of them, so you can access them. Because again, people really want you to use them at this point. And in many cases that's using them so that if you're not careful, your data, your prompts, et cetera, that your input, your output, all of those things are being used to train or develop models. Whereas at Michigan, we know here that when it comes to many of the models that we're using, that is not true there. We're not using data and inputs and outputs, et cetera, to train the models that they've developed here at Michigan.
Elizabeth Harry:
There's so much richness in what you said. So one is sort of this great equalizer, that the accessibility, and acknowledging that the more open models, you might have to have some computing power or some hardware, and maybe some prior knowledge and how to do that weighting. But these closed models for sure are really the great normalizer. There are all these stories of people putting in their symptoms and GPT comes up with something. There are also scary stories. But this great equalizer of access to information, which seems to be really powerful, how do you think that plays into then how we think about our profession moving forward and we think about how we're training our learners?
Cornelius James:
So I often think about these different levels of input and output. So data basically just being something that has not been analyzed, it's just raw. You have data, and then you have information. And I think information is more so you do a Google search and it just brings up whatever is searched for or whatever comes up the most, so to speak, or whatever is most relevant in many respects. So there's information. And you have knowledge where there's someone that is sort of looking at the information and they're applying it to something effectively.
And I think that's where we're going to have to see, there's information that's going to be out there and large language models, in many respects, they do generate information, but it can also generate some knowledge. But I think a lot of it is going to depend upon the end user. So someone can interpret or look at information that's been generated, but whether or not they have the knowledge, and then next the wisdom to actually apply that information in an effective way, that's going to be really important.
Now when it comes to the different health professions and medicine, nursing, all of the other health professions that are out there, I think we're going to have to sort of think about that or have that in mind that are we dealing with data, information, knowledge? Where's the wisdom that's required? How do we train people? Because in my opinion, the wisdom in many respects is going to really be what sets us apart from these technologies because we have that life experience. We have that, I've felt pain, I've felt anguish, I've felt those things. I've seen other people or other folks. Now how do I take this information and take my knowledge and my wisdom and apply that in an effective way? That's what I think is going to be sort of next level when it comes to clinicians and how they engage with this. I feel like I did not answer your question.
Elizabeth Harry:
No, you totally did. And I think that it loops back to the previous point of that we have to train different competencies, and that may mean that we're self-selecting for people that are focused in different things. Because this gets a lot more into the humanism of medicine. And I love that idea of focusing on the wisdom.
Let's jump back a little bit to, you talked about guardrails, you talked about protection, and you really focus at the frontline clinician or clinical team. Tell us how you think about what the companies are doing to protect us, to protect our patients, and what we need to be doing either as organizations, as people are listening to this, or as individuals, as they're sort of engaging with these tools, what are important guardrails to keep ourselves and our patients safe?
Cornelius James:
That is a great and big question, and I'm probably more skeptical than most people. I believe that there are well-meaning developers and companies out there and people working for those companies. But I believe that, as a profession, medicine, or in healthcare generally, it is impossible for those companies to truly know what our patients need. So it's going to be imperative for us to partner with these developers and make sure that the right people are partnering with them and communicating with them so that the solutions or the technologies that are being developed for our patients are actually what our patients need. And not only our patients, but our clinicians as well, that they are actually going to allow them to do what they do better.
Because I believe that, minus that, unfortunately, and I don't want to suggest that there are some people's values that are better than others. I am not saying that, but it's just that sometimes they're not as well aligned as we'd like them to be. So that's why I think those conversations are going to have to happen because I don't suspect that developers are going to know all of the guardrails to put up. But it's going to be up to us as clinicians to have the vocabulary, to know the lingo. And not all of us, maybe we're just training folks to be able to do that a bit more effectively, although I do believe we all hold some responsibility there, but it's going to be very important that we are prepared to speak that language, to have a feedback loop to make sure that, and not only clinicians, patients as well, to make sure that the solutions that are being developed are appropriate.
So again, not sure if I answered your question, but I think the biggest or the best guardrail that we can sort of put up right now is going to be having clinicians involved. And I guess in my mind, I sort of heard the word, if I'm not mistaken, companies, et cetera. And when I think company, I guess I just think about the bottom line generally. And that's what folks tend to, not in all cases, not in all cases, but that tends to be a pretty big focus. Whereas in healthcare, and maybe I'm being too idealistic here, but I think our focus is on, and not that this isn't the case for companies, but it's ultimately on keeping people safe and saving lives and allowing people to be the best that they can possibly be in every way.
And the perspective that I believe we have as healthcare providers, as a profession, you have to live it. And you know better than I do, you have to live it in order to really understand what that means, what that looks like, the type of guardrails that are necessary, et cetera, et cetera.
Elizabeth Harry:
So if a clinician was listening to this, and was like, this is just too much and I'm worried that I don't understand it. It's a black box. I am nervous and I don't want it to hurt my patients, so I think I'll just not engage. What would you say to them?
Cornelius James:
First thing, there's certainly, I know that that is the case we have, that there are some that may be feeling that way. I think the EHR is a great example where folks are like, "This is just too much. I don't want to do this anymore." I think we learned some good lessons from the EHR, in that we recognized that clinicians had to be involved with the development or with the implementation of that.
But I believe it's going to be important for us to truly see the benefits with these technologies, to appreciate how it can actually make us and our patients better. If that is ultimately the focus, then I would hope that we would be excited about engaging with something that's new. And I acknowledge that it can be scary, but I also want to go back to that point that I made. You're not going to have to be a statistician. You're not going to have to be a trialist. You're not going to have to be a world-class researcher. You're going to have to just be able to be a bit adaptive, have those principles, those humanistic principles and those skills that I mentioned earlier, and be willing to change, and at least at this point be a little bit comfortable with being uncomfortable.
But I would say ultimately, I believe we're headed in the right direction. I know of lots of wonderful people locally and nationally that are doing this work and that are advocating for us to use these technologies in the right way. And if we don't, going back to the conversation or what we discussed related to the developers and companies, again, I believe that there are well-meaning companies out there, but if we don't engage, then that's when we can expect that... So Abraham Flexner was not a physician or a healthcare provider. But imagine this person coming in and telling people, I'm not saying that they can't think through this and say what it could and should look like, but he wasn't a physician, a nurse, a pharmacist, a physical therapist, a social worker, an MA, et cetera. He was an educator, but he wasn't a physician. But he was able to come in and say, "This is what it should look like."
I don't think it should happen that way with AI. If we don't have enough clinicians that are learning, and you don't have to be on Capitol Hill, but if we don't have enough people that are saying, "No, this is what it should be like, this is what's happening in real world clinical practice," then the companies, I believe, will dictate how we practice medicine. If it's not the companies, it'll be politicians or other people that'll dictate how we practice medicine. I hope that does not sound dire or overly scary.
Elizabeth Harry:
We've seen it before, right? I mean, if we don't advocate enough in reimbursements, et cetera, other things, those things are dictated for us. And it brings me to this sort of worry that I've had where I look at, so I have a paid subscription to one of these closed models that I use a lot. I don't put anything confidential in there or anything like that. I'm very thoughtful about what I put in there. But boy, has it transformed my ability to run my home and organize my life and made a lot of workflows really easy.
When I compare that to products that are available for some of our workplace use, it's clear to me that there are different tiers, and it depends on what we've paid for and it depends on what guardrails and restrictions we put around them. And it seems like there might be a risk of a two-tier wellbeing future, people that have access to good AI and that understand how to use it to make a digital twin, if you will, as people have spoken about, and then people that are using it like Google, sort of a glorified Google format. What are your thoughts about that and what needs to be put into place to prevent that?
Cornelius James:
Yeah. So it sounds like you're describing a digital divide, but just in a different way. As these technologies become ubiquitous, they're integrated more, I suspect, especially because these are, and this is challenge because we do have to be a bit specific about the type of AI, and I appreciate you being specific with large language models or the generative AI models.
Those are going to become general purpose technologies. And like I said, lots of people already have access to them. But I do think about people in rural communities with internet access or the signal may not be as robust. So those are things that we certainly have to address. But I do suspect that as these technologies become more sort of ingrained in our culture and society, I suspect that they will become less expensive. I suspect that they'll become better.
But my concern is not so much around that divide and that there are some with better, quote, "technologies." I really don't suspect that that's going to be the issue. I get far more concerned about these technologies becoming really good. And now there are some who are able to access a doctor, which is a premium, meaning a human doctor, but others can only access or are only accessing AI. That's what I get a bit more concerned about because these tools are going to become better, they're going to become smarter.
There was a bill, and even in that summit report, they did mention digital doctors, but then there was a bill introduced in Congress, I believe in 2025 or so, where a Congressman US proposed or put a bill forth that would allow states to determine if AI can prescribe medications. I know there were some responses to that from national organizations. And I get it. In my opinion, that's coming, but I do believe that the technologies have to be vetted and so on and so on, and there's going to have to be lots of policies around that. I believe it's coming.
But again, my concern is, because that's coming, does it now become a premium to be able to see a human that can provide that communication, that can provide that touch, that empathy, that can give you what you need human to human, that can understand what you're dealing with, what you're going through? I get a bit more concerned about that divide.
Elizabeth Harry:
Wow. I mean, that's amazing to even think about. And I mean, just envisioning this future where it is sort of optional that your healthcare would involve a human is really profound. And so if you're-
Cornelius James:
Liz, can I just really quickly say?
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah.
Cornelius James:
I get a little bit more concerned about that being the case for marginalized minoritized populations, not just because there's the premium there when it comes to being able to see a clinician. But we did a study relatively recently that it was in JAMA Network Open. It was just like a secondary analysis, and it was looking at older adults' use of digital health technologies. And interestingly, racially minoritized folks, Black folks, Hispanic folks, they used digital health technologies, and this was a surprising finding, they used digital health technologies more often than people that were in a majority population. So that was interesting.
And one of the questions that someone posed to me was, "Well, should we just start pushing this and suggesting that these populations use this more?" I said, "No, we should address the reason why they're not seeing doctors." And I get a little bit concerned about, because of mistrust and distrust of the healthcare system, that people do tend to turn toward these technologies as opposed to humans because of the distrust and the mistrust and so on and so on. So that's a bit tangential, but I think it's sort of related in that I see that potential there too.
Elizabeth Harry:
Well, and it's so interesting because, on the one hand, it's like this idea of the great equalizer that people that have no care right now, is it a step up from where they are? That there's a sort of foreshadowed physician shortage that is quite startling when we look at some of those numbers that have been predicted. And so thinking about, okay, well, are we comparing it to having no care, or are we comparing it to having a human? And then part of the question I start asking myself is, might we get to a point, I think we'll never not want that human connection.
Cornelius James:
I hope not. I hope so.
Elizabeth Harry:
I hope not too. But might we get to the point where the AI is actually maybe better in terms of the cognitive piece of it?
Cornelius James:
Oh, for sure.
Elizabeth Harry:
Right. And so then it's like, are there people that are going to say, "I don't care about that human piece. I want that 100% you've searched everything in the universe that exists related to my symptoms guarantee which a human can't give me in the same way."
Cornelius James:
I think if we go to our medical ethics principles with the autonomy piece, I think that's going to be fine. There are some people that prefer that. There are some patients where I say, "Please take this statin. It's going to be very important," or, "Please take aspirin," and they will not do it. And I think having that agency, having the autonomy to make that decision, if someone would prefer to see AI. But is it available? Meaning is that human, is it accessible? If I needed it, if I really felt. Because at the same time, while my patients will say, "I don't want to take the statin," they know you portal me, I'm going to send it for you, and I'm going to congratulate you for making that decision. But if we're to just not be available, that's another issue.
Elizabeth Harry:
So with all of this, do you think we're at any risk of overmedicalizing AI, treating it like a device problem when it's really sort of maybe a system or operations or kind of human problem?
Cornelius James:
So I think you can probably appreciate that I'm expecting that these technologies are going to get better. They're going to be better at diagnosis, particularly the thinking part of diagnosis. There's already been literature, it's not quite real world clinical practice, but I think many are familiar with that paper published in JAMA Network Open suggesting that AI alone performed better than either humans alone or humans with resources like UpToDate and so on. But it's going to get better. It's going to show, quote, "superhuman performance" that's going to happen.
Bob Wachter wrote a paper in JAMA, I think it was published in 2024 or so, it was around this productivity paradox. And what he suggested was these innovations are going to get better or these technological innovations particularly are going to get better. But there needs to be a parallel innovation in multiple areas for us to successfully integrate these tools into healthcare. There has to be innovation in medical education. There has to be innovation in the culture of healthcare systems, innovation when it comes to teamwork. There has to be so much innovation.
So to your point, yes, I do suspect that it's going to be more of a human problem because the technology's going to get better because people are going to continue to innovate. We see these technologies changing by the month, by every few months or so. But we need to have this parallel race toward innovation when it comes to culture, teaming, education, et cetera, et cetera, that are very, very, and implementation science or implementation. There needs to be the same degree of funding and interest and so on in those areas as well if we're going to see these technologies truly benefit patients and clinicians.
Elizabeth Harry:
It's sort of naming that sociotechnical system. Don't just focus on the technology, but the social piece in which it lives. I love that. So if a clinician's listening, what's one thing they could do Monday morning, next week, to integrate some of these learnings or to try to move a little bit forward in their use of AI?
Cornelius James:
So I suspect that we have folks, I met with someone yesterday, I'm not going to give the number because then they'll know who it was, but they said that they had only used AI a handful of times, and this is someone at Michigan with lots of AI around to use for free. So my opinion is to just try it, not necessarily for a clinical purpose at this point, try it to just see what it does. If you're planning that trip to Chicago, ask AI, what are some hotel, or ask the gen AI or a model, use U-M GPT or something like that, how can I get there? And once I get there, where should I stay? And I'm traveling with my wife and two kids, or my husband and two kids, or my partner and two kids. Ask it, just use it for simple things like that. I want to make spaghetti. Give me a good recipe for making spaghetti. And just sort of see what it does and appreciate some of the benefits, but also the limitations or the challenges associated with it.
And then if you move forward, try something like OpenEvidence, which is freely available and just sort of see where the benefits lie. You'll be able to see, yeah, JAMA, NEJM, the American Diabetes Association are now making their content openly available to this technology. Maybe there's something behind this.
And then maybe you get over to where you say, okay, I'm going to try out this Ambient Scribe thing, see if it really moves the needle or has an impact. I think those are small things that people can do, recognizing that there are folks that are sort of across the spectrum. And I would say if you are a heavy user, try to certainly be respectful of those who are sort of lagging behind, but there's literature suggesting that clinicians or trusted clinicians have a major impact or a significant impact on what their peers do. If we allow people or tell or talk it up or talk about how this technology has actually been helpful in your clinical life, but also maybe even your personal life.
Elizabeth Harry:
I love that. And if you're a healthcare system leader listening to this, and maybe you're sort of bought into the ambient documentation because most health systems seem to be, but you're not sure where you should be thinking next as a leader of a health system, and this is not your space, what would you advise them to be thinking about next week?
Cornelius James:
Oh, I have my bias that's like, I'm going to say education, education, education. I think that's going to be really important to educate the end users. But I would suggest surrounding oneself with, first and foremost, people who their mission, vision, values are aligned with the university, but that also have the technical expertise, the clinical expertise, all of the expertise that's needed to ensure that ultimately we're making... And this is what I love. At Michigan, yes, have we deployed more models than everybody? Have we put out the coolest models? But it's been thoughtful because it's been thoughtful implementation integrate... Would I love to see it go a little faster sometimes? Absolutely. But I believe that it's been thoughtful because the right people are in the room and having these discussions. And when I say the right people, I'm talking about diversity in many ways, the right people are in the room, and therefore that's causing it to actually work well as opposed to not.
Elizabeth Harry:
And we're all patients at some point, but if you're a patient listening to this and thinking about how to incorporate AI into your patient or health or personal wellness journey, what would you say?
Cornelius James:
So the digital literacy question that you asked earlier was really important. You're likely familiar with there's a model that Epic recently released. It's either Emmie or Emma, one of those two, where it's basically a patient facing AI that's going to eventually allow them to ask questions and it's going to explain results and so on and so on.
So those things are coming, and I would suggest very similar to what I mentioned about clinicians, just start to think about using these technologies, maybe in personal life for personal things. And then eventually, once you get to a point where you feel comfortable, it's okay. It is okay to ask the AI questions. But, but, big but, it's going to be very important that you also consult with your healthcare provider to ensure that some of the recommendations, the suggestions from the AI, are actually evidence-based, safe, and appropriate for you. So I think engaging with the technology's great idea, but it's important, just like the clinicians, to do so in a safe and responsible manner.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah, to get that wisdom.
Cornelius James:
Yeah, for sure.
Elizabeth Harry:
Well, I mean, this has been incredible and I have learned so much. So thank you so much, Dr. James, for sharing your insights on the evolving-
Cornelius James:
You said Cornelius though.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah, but we're closing it.
Cornelius James:
Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm kidding.
Elizabeth Harry:
But no, no, it's perfect. So thank you for sharing your insights on the evolving landscape of AI and healthcare. And we've covered lots of things from building true AI literacy in clinicians to leaders to patients, which we all are, of course, to pitfalls in how we think about the different types of models and model evaluation and governance, and why motivations behind these things matter, and having the right minds at the table to really think through this, thinking about how language-based AI can affect wellbeing, and where we need to be really thoughtful to make sure that if we're doing this to give access and to help create access where we're having access issues, that's wonderful. If it creates access issues, because we sort of start filtering people through AI instead of having that human experience, that we really need to watch for that.
And as the JAMA Summit Report suggests, this transformation is well underway and our challenge is to close the gap between the technological innovation and meaningful oversight as well as the social piece that you talked about and that wisdom. I really love that. And it's clear that interdisciplinary collaboration and patient-centered thinking has to be at the center, the humanness of this. I really appreciated that.
So to our audience, thank you for joining. Keep asking critical questions, stay curious, consider how you can foster more informed use of AI in your day-to-day. We have links and resources in the show notes to Michigan AI resources available to improve your daily workflows. And come join us again. Thank you, and thank you so much for joining.
Cornelius James:
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.uofmhealth.org/well-being-michigan-medicine/ai-well-being-and-human-connection
* * *
AI, Well-Being and the Human Connection
Building AI literacy while protecting the empathy, wisdom and connection at the heart of care
September 22, 2026
Artificial intelligence is changing healthcare -- but what does that mean for the people who deliver and receive care? Cornelius James, M.D., FACP, FNAP, a clinical assistant professor and primary care physician at for U-M Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, joins Chief Well-Being ... Show Full Article ANN ARBOR, Michigan, Sept. 23 -- Michigan Medicine, the academic medical center of the University of Michigan, issued the following news release: * * * AI, Well-Being and the Human Connection Building AI literacy while protecting the empathy, wisdom and connection at the heart of care September 22, 2026 Artificial intelligence is changing healthcare -- but what does that mean for the people who deliver and receive care? Cornelius James, M.D., FACP, FNAP, a clinical assistant professor and primary care physician at for U-M Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, joins Chief Well-BeingOfficer Elizabeth Harry, M.D., to explore AI literacy, clinical judgment, governance, education and well-being.
They discuss how healthcare can embrace new technologies while protecting human connection, empathy, wisdom and the meaningful moments that define care.
Episode guest:
Cornelius James, M.D., FACP, FNAP
Learn more about how the Office of Well-Being aids it team members and brings a culture of belonging, resilience and support.
Transcript
Elizabeth Harry:
Welcome. I'm Dr. Liz Harry, and this is the Well-Being at Michigan Medicine Podcast. Welcome to our discussion on AI in healthcare. I'm thrilled today to introduce Dr. Cornelius James, assistant professor in internal medicine, pediatrics and learning health sciences here at the University of Michigan. Dr. James is not only a practicing primary care, but also a leader in AI and machine learning education and implementation in clinical practice. He heads the DATA-MD team, which is preparing clinicians for the AI-powered future and developing web-based curricula to bring interprofessional perspectives, including patients, into the conversation.
As AI tools become deeply embedded in healthcare, recent reports like the JAMA Summit Report on AI, which came out in October of 2025, highlight our urgent need for stronger systems in evaluation, monitoring, governance, infrastructure, and incentives. At the same time, there are real world risks, like a London School of Economics analysis showing a Gemma generated summary in social care may downplay women's health needs and research in PNAS warning that large language models often misestimate wellbeing in underrepresented contexts.
Today, we'll dive deep into these challenges, what it takes to become an AI literate clinician, how we should rethink medical training, the incentive shaping health system choices and the practical tools and guardrails needed to ensure AI delivers real benefit without unintended harms. Welcome, Dr. James. Can I call you Cornelius?
Cornelius James:
Of course, only if I can call you Liz.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yes, yes, absolutely.
Cornelius James:
Okay, great. I really appreciate the introduction, Liz, and I'm very excited to be here and honored to be here.
Elizabeth Harry:
Oh, I'm so excited. This is just a great topic. It feels like it's top of mind. You can't get on anything these days without seeing a post about AI or a conversation about it. And so as we think about, one of the big parts of your role that I think is so cool is really thinking about how we build AI literate clinicians, how we train the current generation, the next generation of clinicians, so that they know how to interact with this technology in a really effective way. So first off, what does that mean and what should they be able to do next week?
Cornelius James:
Absolutely. Really appreciate the question. It's challenging because, as medical educators, as clinicians, and I say more specifically as medical educators, it's challenging because these tools are already out there. They're already in the wild. So in some respects, students, learners, et cetera, are using these tools, unfortunately, without very much training. And that's okay. And I'm sure that we have a lot to learn from those that are currently using the tools, but there's also some risk associated with taking that approach.
So we usually see people using generative AI or using large language models, OpenEvidence, et cetera, to inform clinical decisions and so on. And that's okay as long as there's a healthy level of skepticism or a person being inclined to always ensure that the outputs that they're receiving from these models are accurate. So that's one part of things.
But there's other AI out there. And unfortunately, I think generative AI, really cool, really exciting, it's important, but it's not the only type of AI that's out there. Generative AI comes from a long history of work that's been done on other types of AI models, and those are tools that we're going to have to interact with as well as clinicians. And we have to start preparing folks to interact with certainly generative AI. That's going to require learning how to collaborate or interact with the tool, so to speak.
But when it comes to those other models, there's other things that have to be considered. And some of it'll overlap with what we do for generative AI. And one thing I'll say is I usually say when it comes to all of these models, you're not going to have to be a developer, you're not going to have to be a world-class computer scientist or engineer or anything like that, but I often compare it to a randomized controlled trial.
So if you're going to implement or use whatever is being studied in a randomized controlled trial, as a clinician, you should be able to read a randomized controlled trial, determine whether or not there's a high risk of bias, internal validity, external validity, generalizability, et cetera. Being able to do that, in my opinion, is going to be very important, meaning from a randomized control trial from a just clinical intervention perspective. But then when it comes to AI, yeah, again, similarly, you're not going to have to develop a model, but to understand where a model's data comes from, who developed it, why was it developed, et cetera, to ask those types of questions, that's what clinicians are going to have to be able to do so that they can effectively integrate the outputs of these tools into their clinical decision making.
Elizabeth Harry:
And so you mentioned large language models and generative AI as sort of one category. Give us an example of something else that you see in a different category that you think might be on the horizon for clinicians to start thinking about how they would engage with it.
Cornelius James:
Interesting. So I can give you one that's not even on the horizon, but that is actually out there in clinical practice sort of in the wild. So there's the Epic Sepsis Model as an example or deterioration models, those are widely deployed, available. So the Epic Sepsis Model, you have a patient that's hospitalized or one of your patients is hospitalized, you get a risk score that pops up saying that this person is at risk of sepsis. Well, what does that mean for my particular patient? How do I interpret that? How do I be the human in the loop to say, well, that doesn't quite make sense for my patient, or I just saw Mr. Jones, I just reviewed his history, that doesn't quite fit with this picture? Or you know what? I didn't think about that particular point, so maybe I do need to think a little bit more about that or monitor this value a little bit more.
Because we can go in either direction. We can say, okay, I'm going to either automation bias, okay, person's at risk for sepsis, I'm going to start antibiotics, send this person to the ICU. Or I'm going to be a bit more nuanced, and say, I know my patient well, I feel confident in my clinical experience, my team's experience, the input that I'm giving, let's monitor this a little bit and then we can make decisions from there. So that's one example in an inpatient setting.
In an outpatient setting, diabetic retinopathy. So we know that was the first autonomous FDA approved model to screen for diabetic retinopathy that is again out there. And if a person has a high risk or the model suggests that there's a high risk of diabetic retinopathy, do you just refer? Is there, again, that automation bias, or is there that under reliance where you're not trusting it for a given reason? And that's where background, experience, reading, understanding of how these tools work is really important. And those two models, the retinopathy model, that's a deep learning model. It's not generative AI. The other models that I mentioned are predictive models that are not generative AI.
Elizabeth Harry:
What I love about your analogy that you're tying it to being able to understand a randomized control trial is that, as a clinician, everyone doesn't need to have the skills to run a randomized control trial, but it reminds me of that study, parachutes don't decrease the risk of mortality when jumping outside of a plane. But then if you look at the methods, they had the people jumping off the wing on a grounded plane. And the importance is that you have to know how to read a study because the click bait can be really misleading if you don't have that skill.
And what I'm really hearing you say is AI is the same. That if you don't understand some of the background, some of how the sausage is made, if you will, then you might get in this very sort of automated habit that could put your patients at risk because you're over testing or overprescribing or alternatively not having that nuanced skill. And so some terms that I hear thrown around when we talk about medical education and our learners, particularly around AI, is this sort of skilling, de-skilling, never skilling. In the AI era, what do these terms mean to you? And when you think of them, what should we as educators be thinking about? What should our learners be thinking about? And do they apply to more than just our learners too?
Cornelius James:
Appreciate that question. It's something that I've been thinking about for a while, and my understanding or thoughts about this have sort of evolved. I will say broadly, there will be a necessary de-skilling that's going to be important. And I believe that that's something that's very challenging to think about, to come to grips with.
Elizabeth Harry:
And what does that mean, a necessary de-skilling?
Cornelius James:
That there will be some things that are going to... We don't need to know the Krebs cycle anymore as an example. So hopefully medical students out there are clapping and very happy because I'm saying things like that will probably no longer be necessary.
But at the same time, we are sort of trying to skate to where the puck is going in that we know what these tools in many respects are capable of, but we don't know what it's going to look like in real world clinical practice across the board. So the necessary de-skilling will involve those things that we absolutely should stop teaching our learners now, right now. And in my opinion, there are things that are out there like that. I mentioned the Krebs cycle kind of jokingly, but there are other things out there that I think they're sort of those fatted calves as some would call them where we don't really want to sacrifice those things because of various reasons, whether it is because of professional identity or other things, it's understandable and I want to be sensitive to that, understanding that, but it's going to be important if we ultimately want to take good care of our patients.
And then there's going to be harmful de-skilling where we should not. There were some things, some blind spots, so to speak, that we didn't sort of account for that's going to... And I would say that, it's as important, but that's what we definitely want to make sure that we avoid. And the same is true for never skilling. Never skilling, it could be either harmful or good, again, in that there are some things that we should never teach students again, but then we also want to make sure that we are teaching things that definitely need to be taught and that we avoid that harmful never skilling.
So it's not going to be easy. Christy Boscardin, Brian Gin, and Raja-Elie Abdulnour wrote a great paper in NEJM. It was an editorial describing what this could potentially look like. And they were very thoughtful in thinking, yes, there are some things where we have to think about sort of where learners are in their trajectory where we do say, make sure that they have been skilled here so that we can now start to prepare them or allow them to interact with these tools just so that we can make sure that they have that foundation that's going to be necessary if there's a failure of technologies and so on and so on.
But the failure of technologies, I get it, but I also caution against just saying we have to always teach these things because you never know if technology's going to break down. I often give the example of, well, I don't live right around the corner from my clinical office because I'm concerned my car is going to break down or I didn't learn to ride a horse so that I can make sure that I can continue to get to work. I'm going to make decisions that are ultimately, yeah, there's some risk involved with it, but ultimately it's going to, in the grand scheme of things, serve me, my family, et cetera, well.
Elizabeth Harry:
And so there's this tension of this idea of do we have to sort of have learners hold off on using these tools until there's kind of a baseline? I think I've even seen this graph and I can't think of, it was in a talk I saw, so I can't cite the paper, but maybe it's the one you're describing, where if you're at this certain knowledge level, then it is an accelerant.
And I've felt that way in my clinical care. I feel very confident that using some of these resources, my patients are getting much better care with the questions I'm able to ask and the things I'm able to check. And this idea that if you have not hit this sort of level of competency, then you could fall into this never skilling risk. What are your thoughts about that concept?
Cornelius James:
Yeah, absolutely. And we are certainly talking about the same paper. And I do believe that a lot of that is important. And there has to be a trust between students and/or learners or residents and house officers, fellows, there has to be a trust so that they'll believe that we're doing what's best for them because they're smart. They're super smart human beings. And eventually the resident or the medical student is going to say, "I could spend so much more time with my patients. I could look them in the eye more. I could be more well or have better wellbeing if I didn't have to be so concerned about writing this note."
So that, in my opinion, it's one of those things where I'm not suggesting that we move in one direction versus another, but those are things that we sort of have to weigh. Yes, I understand that there's literature suggesting that writing or putting pen to paper or typing, it's helpful for developing clinical reasoning and formatting plans and truly understanding the patient. But what's the balance? What's the trade off when it comes to learner wellness and their engagement, and also preparing them for what the real world is going to actually be like?
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah. I love this. An analogous thing that I've spent some time thinking about is we teach people to present patients. I haven't presented a patient since I left residency. When was the last time you had to present a patient? And yet we spend so much in internal medicine, like half our day, training people to do a skill that they will never ever do again in the real world.
And I find it so fascinating some of the historic, and we could talk, it's a whole other discussion about why do we do presentations, and where did that come from and why do we still do them in the way that we do them? But I think this idea, and I love your analogy about the horse and the car and where you live, this idea of are we sort of insisting, is it like cursive, are we insisting that they learn something that they're not ever going to use, or is there some mandatory minimum threshold?
Cornelius James:
Yeah, I agree. And unfortunately, I don't believe we have the answers to all of those questions. But I've also stated in the past, we're trying to sort of skate to where the puck is going, but moving in that direction, because this is a big, huge enterprise, certainly here at Michigan Medicine, but healthcare in general, medical education is huge. And to get it to shift or pivot, that's like moving the Earth or turning the Earth. So getting that to happen is really challenging. But I say that because it's going to take bold initiatives, in my opinion, to get us to where we need to be when it comes to engaging with these technologies.
This is our Flexnerian moment, so to speak. So Flexner wrote that report back in 1910 or so, commissioned by, I believe the AMA and the Carnegie Foundation, but wrote that report because medical education was in a horrible state at that point. You barely had to even have a college degree to be a doctor. So I don't agree with everything that happened in the Flexner report because there was some racist things that happened there too. But it also laid the foundation for things like the biomedical model, which we still use, and also ensuring that learners are able to engage in the clinical environment because that's what they're going to be doing. That was a monumental shift for medical education and for healthcare at that time. I believe we are in a similar moment right now with AI where we can sort of ignore it, but it's happening for sure.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah. And it's interesting because there's people kind of all over the spectrum on that. There's people that are like, "Oh, maybe it's a bubble." It feels like there's no way this could be a bubble. And then there is dialogue of the world will never be the same. And really our ability to deliver effective care, sustain our profession. When I think about wellbeing, I think about people being able to come and do the job that they meant to do that gives them meaning and purpose, care for others, in a way that doesn't detract from their own ability to also care for themselves. And see this as an opportunity to facilitate that.
Cornelius James:
100%. 100%. The challenge though, in my opinion, is going to be the care and what that looks like. I suspect that what it means to be a clinician, to be a healthcare provider, is going to be a bit different. It's no longer going to be encyclopedic knowledge. It's going to be important for us to have these facts to move science forward, et cetera, to know, to have great medical knowledge. But to care, to team, to be empathic. Those are going to be changes where we're going to say that is a great clinician because they're able to communicate well, they're able to team well, they're able to collaborate, they're able to critically think, critically appraise.
Those are going to be things that are going to be really important relative to what's been emphasized in the past around memorization, rote knowledge. You know what I mean? And it's going to sort of change. I don't want to be hyperbolic here, but professional identity and who chooses to become a doctor, a nurse, a pharmacist, et cetera, this is going to have a major impact on that even, in my opinion.
Elizabeth Harry:
What I love about what you're saying is that, in some ways the technology puts the human connection back at the forefront.
Cornelius James:
100%, 100%. And that is what a lot of my work is, I try to gear it toward. I try to start a lot of the conversations that I have with the old Peabody quote, the care of the patient, the science of medicine and the art of medicine, not antagonistic, but complimentary. And enforcing and encouraging that clinician-patient relationship, making that stronger.
It pains me at times that I can't go to more patient funerals to be with their family. That there's not enough time for me to, when appropriate and when well received, to give a patient a hug, to tell them I'm praying for you, or let's pray together if that's what they want. Because I'm so busy with so many other things that are not really patient care related, like finishing a note or checking a in-basket message and so on and so on. I'm rambling now. I'm sorry.
Elizabeth Harry:
No, but it ties beautifully. I mean, we actually had Dr. Sanjay Saint on many episodes ago talking about the Sacred Moments work. We can put a link in the show notes to that particular episode, but that's what you're naming is the ability to create space for these sacred moments in healthcare. And then we had Dr. Vic Strecher on talking about purpose, and create more space for the things that bring purpose.
And I think that's better for everybody involved, ourselves as clinicians, our patients, ourselves as clinician patients, because we also have recently talked about that. And it sounds like, so there was this report in JAMA, which seemed to be kind of a big moment in trying to summarize where we're at. And my read of it is that it basically says what we're saying here. It's going to transform healthcare. But one of my takeaways from it is that maybe our evaluation and our oversight systems and our governance aren't ready. And I'm curious your take on that and where are you seeing that gap most critically, and what do we need to do to try to address it?
Cornelius James:
So again, appreciate that question. Governance oversight at both the national and even international levels, extremely important. Oversight at the local level, very important. Nicholson Price wrote a great paper in Nature describing this collaborative governance that's going to be necessary. I would suggest taking a look at that if you can. It was written in 2023 or so. But it's basically suggesting that the federal government should have a responsibility to say, these are the policies, these are the guardrails, these are the things that we are going to regulate, are not going to regulate.
And then you have local committees because they know their environment, they know their patients, their populations, their culture, et cetera. They're able to sort of say, let's take these practices, make sure that we're meeting them, but we have to also make sure we're tailoring what we're doing to our particular population. So the governance there is important.
The work that I do is a bit more meso macro in that I'm thinking a bit more about the oversight of the practicing frontline clinician. Because ultimately they're going to be the ones responsible for making decisions around these tools, and making sure that they are properly equipped to make those decisions, whether it's through initial training and education in medical school or residency or whatever professional school that a person's going through, but then also amongst teams. How does this change team dynamics now? How are these conversations taking place now that we've got a tool, perhaps we see a shared output from a model? Well, how do we all communicate or talk about that? What does the oversight of that technology or that particular output look like and how do we come together as a healthcare team to apply this to our patient to make sure that they're receiving the best care?
So I believe generally speaking, that middle level that I just mentioned, is probably where we're doing a bit better. And I know Michigan specifically is doing very well in that middle level with the local governance, the clinical intelligence committee, which I'm honored to sit on. Great. I'm there when we're vetting these tools and ensuring that they are what they should be, what they need to be, they're going to be helpful.
But it's that federal level that's challenging that we really can't do a lot about in some respects. I know there are things that we can do, but that's challenging. But then there's that micro level that is, I believe we need to pay a bit more... Those are probably going to be the harder levels to address that federal level and that micro level. In my opinion, those are going to be the biggest lifts, so to speak, when it comes to governance.
Elizabeth Harry:
And it seems like part of the skilling and also part of that micro level is really shifting our competencies or our capabilities from generating ourself, generating a note, or generating things, to sort of evaluating and reviewing, and the ability to be very discerning reviewers rather than sort of blank slate generators. Is that fair?
Cornelius James:
With proper balance. So in that summit, that JAMA Summit Report, they described this algorithmovigilance, which is great. Julia Adler-Milstein out at UCSF wrote a great paper about that as well. In that paper, she mentioned, yeah, clinicians are going to have to be vigilant, but we can get to a point where now it becomes overwhelming that they have to check everything. So we also don't want these technologies to be deployed or implemented in a way where clinicians are like, "I'm spending so much time reviewing the results and making sure that they add up. I'm trying to be vigilant, but now that's sort of taking the place of whatever I was doing before." So there's going to have to be that vigilance for sure, but how do we balance it is going to really be key.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah, It's interesting because even when we've looked at the ambient documentation data, people's self-reported burnout has declined and their perception of cognitive load appears to have declined, but this sort of work after work seems to vary. Some self-reported work after work or sort of perceived work home conflict seems to go down. But to me, it seems that there's a little bit of a mixed signal when you actually look at the data in Epic of how long are they spending that we're slightly shifting where the work is maybe because of this phenomenon you're talking about.
Cornelius James:
That's interesting. I guess as you were speaking, so I do some qualitative work, and it would actually be interesting because, and I'll speak for myself, if I'm doing work at home that I believe is meaningful, that I really believe is moving the needle and helping people, I guess I don't know that I'd mind as much. Now you'd have to ask my wife and kids how much they mind, but I don't know that I would mind that. So it would be interesting to know the quality of that work that's happening at home. Do you feel that improvement when it comes to burnout and wellness and wellbeing, but do you still have that same amount of time that you're working at home, but are you doing something that's meaningful? That's something that would be interesting to me.
Elizabeth Harry:
And do you have a sense of autonomy? So I always joke with my team because they do look at signal data and they do look at how are clinics doing in terms of this. And I always joke with them, don't look at my pajama time because I do almost all of my kind of clinical care, if I'm not actually in clinic after hours, just because of the way that my life is structured and my day job, if you will, takes up this part. And so then I do that, big change, it takes a lot of time. But I make that choice. And so it doesn't contribute to burnout for me because I can come home and have dinner with the kids and get them to bed and then look at the things. And that's okay with me because I feel a sense of autonomy around it. And so I think that question of autonomy and control comes into play there as well.
I think you've been teaching us a lot already. So we've talked about a little bit between what an LLM is and what generative AI is versus some of these deep learning models or kind of predictive models. Another area that you and I have messaged about and talked about a little bit is this idea of an open model versus a closed model. Could you teach us a little bit about what is the difference between those two things, both sort of technically and operationally?
Cornelius James:
Sure. So I'll use some brand names here if that's okay. So your open models are going to be things like your Geminis, your ChatGPTs, your Claudes. So those are huge models that are foundation models that have been pre-trained on large amounts of data. And then they've been fine-tuned for various purposes, image generation, language, maybe multiple things. So they are trained, they're pre-trained, fine-tuned, deployed, that's it. No one has access to what data they used, architecture, weights, et cetera. It is closed. If you want to access it or use it at your institution in a special, you can use an API, but you're not going to go in there and manipulate data, manipulate weights, et cetera, et cetera. So that's what closed models are.
Your open models are going to be, I'll use again some brand names here, your Gemmas or Llama, right? Or for a medical example, there's something called Meditron that has been trained or pre-trained on large amounts of medical data. So those models are actually pre-trained, and it's going to sort of vary or there's a range of openness, so to speak. So maybe one shares their data or their architecture or their weight, but maybe not all of that.
So those models are going to be a bit more flexible, a bit more transparent. Flexible in that, yes, we can take this model, and we can fine tune it in a way that we want to use it in our setting. And we know what's going on in many respects with this particular model because we've done the work to fine tune it in a way that's going to be beneficial for us. So it's flexible in that way, but it's again, also transparent that we know sort of what the... You could say that there's more perhaps, yeah, I'll just use the word transparency here when it comes to what's actually put into developing those types of models.
Elizabeth Harry:
And it seems to me that, as an individual, our frontline clinician either has access to what their organization puts forward, which an organization may engage with one of these more open models, or it seems like they have access to these sort of closed, large models. Is that fair?
Cornelius James:
Okay. So the proprietary model or the closed models, they're very smart because they want everyone to use them. So yes, you can have access to what your institution sort of endorses. Yes, we have Copilot in our Microsoft suite. So there's that. But generally, and this is one of the things that's amazing about AI, is that everybody has access to it, patients, et cetera. So yeah, you can have these closed models or access those, but on the other hand, everybody can access the open models and manipulate them if they have the compute power and so on, if they have the hardware and so on.
But they can take those and they can fine tune them in a way that's most appropriate for what they want to do. So you do have the institutional things, but people also have access to, there's a free version of just about all of them, so you can access them. Because again, people really want you to use them at this point. And in many cases that's using them so that if you're not careful, your data, your prompts, et cetera, that your input, your output, all of those things are being used to train or develop models. Whereas at Michigan, we know here that when it comes to many of the models that we're using, that is not true there. We're not using data and inputs and outputs, et cetera, to train the models that they've developed here at Michigan.
Elizabeth Harry:
There's so much richness in what you said. So one is sort of this great equalizer, that the accessibility, and acknowledging that the more open models, you might have to have some computing power or some hardware, and maybe some prior knowledge and how to do that weighting. But these closed models for sure are really the great normalizer. There are all these stories of people putting in their symptoms and GPT comes up with something. There are also scary stories. But this great equalizer of access to information, which seems to be really powerful, how do you think that plays into then how we think about our profession moving forward and we think about how we're training our learners?
Cornelius James:
So I often think about these different levels of input and output. So data basically just being something that has not been analyzed, it's just raw. You have data, and then you have information. And I think information is more so you do a Google search and it just brings up whatever is searched for or whatever comes up the most, so to speak, or whatever is most relevant in many respects. So there's information. And you have knowledge where there's someone that is sort of looking at the information and they're applying it to something effectively.
And I think that's where we're going to have to see, there's information that's going to be out there and large language models, in many respects, they do generate information, but it can also generate some knowledge. But I think a lot of it is going to depend upon the end user. So someone can interpret or look at information that's been generated, but whether or not they have the knowledge, and then next the wisdom to actually apply that information in an effective way, that's going to be really important.
Now when it comes to the different health professions and medicine, nursing, all of the other health professions that are out there, I think we're going to have to sort of think about that or have that in mind that are we dealing with data, information, knowledge? Where's the wisdom that's required? How do we train people? Because in my opinion, the wisdom in many respects is going to really be what sets us apart from these technologies because we have that life experience. We have that, I've felt pain, I've felt anguish, I've felt those things. I've seen other people or other folks. Now how do I take this information and take my knowledge and my wisdom and apply that in an effective way? That's what I think is going to be sort of next level when it comes to clinicians and how they engage with this. I feel like I did not answer your question.
Elizabeth Harry:
No, you totally did. And I think that it loops back to the previous point of that we have to train different competencies, and that may mean that we're self-selecting for people that are focused in different things. Because this gets a lot more into the humanism of medicine. And I love that idea of focusing on the wisdom.
Let's jump back a little bit to, you talked about guardrails, you talked about protection, and you really focus at the frontline clinician or clinical team. Tell us how you think about what the companies are doing to protect us, to protect our patients, and what we need to be doing either as organizations, as people are listening to this, or as individuals, as they're sort of engaging with these tools, what are important guardrails to keep ourselves and our patients safe?
Cornelius James:
That is a great and big question, and I'm probably more skeptical than most people. I believe that there are well-meaning developers and companies out there and people working for those companies. But I believe that, as a profession, medicine, or in healthcare generally, it is impossible for those companies to truly know what our patients need. So it's going to be imperative for us to partner with these developers and make sure that the right people are partnering with them and communicating with them so that the solutions or the technologies that are being developed for our patients are actually what our patients need. And not only our patients, but our clinicians as well, that they are actually going to allow them to do what they do better.
Because I believe that, minus that, unfortunately, and I don't want to suggest that there are some people's values that are better than others. I am not saying that, but it's just that sometimes they're not as well aligned as we'd like them to be. So that's why I think those conversations are going to have to happen because I don't suspect that developers are going to know all of the guardrails to put up. But it's going to be up to us as clinicians to have the vocabulary, to know the lingo. And not all of us, maybe we're just training folks to be able to do that a bit more effectively, although I do believe we all hold some responsibility there, but it's going to be very important that we are prepared to speak that language, to have a feedback loop to make sure that, and not only clinicians, patients as well, to make sure that the solutions that are being developed are appropriate.
So again, not sure if I answered your question, but I think the biggest or the best guardrail that we can sort of put up right now is going to be having clinicians involved. And I guess in my mind, I sort of heard the word, if I'm not mistaken, companies, et cetera. And when I think company, I guess I just think about the bottom line generally. And that's what folks tend to, not in all cases, not in all cases, but that tends to be a pretty big focus. Whereas in healthcare, and maybe I'm being too idealistic here, but I think our focus is on, and not that this isn't the case for companies, but it's ultimately on keeping people safe and saving lives and allowing people to be the best that they can possibly be in every way.
And the perspective that I believe we have as healthcare providers, as a profession, you have to live it. And you know better than I do, you have to live it in order to really understand what that means, what that looks like, the type of guardrails that are necessary, et cetera, et cetera.
Elizabeth Harry:
So if a clinician was listening to this, and was like, this is just too much and I'm worried that I don't understand it. It's a black box. I am nervous and I don't want it to hurt my patients, so I think I'll just not engage. What would you say to them?
Cornelius James:
First thing, there's certainly, I know that that is the case we have, that there are some that may be feeling that way. I think the EHR is a great example where folks are like, "This is just too much. I don't want to do this anymore." I think we learned some good lessons from the EHR, in that we recognized that clinicians had to be involved with the development or with the implementation of that.
But I believe it's going to be important for us to truly see the benefits with these technologies, to appreciate how it can actually make us and our patients better. If that is ultimately the focus, then I would hope that we would be excited about engaging with something that's new. And I acknowledge that it can be scary, but I also want to go back to that point that I made. You're not going to have to be a statistician. You're not going to have to be a trialist. You're not going to have to be a world-class researcher. You're going to have to just be able to be a bit adaptive, have those principles, those humanistic principles and those skills that I mentioned earlier, and be willing to change, and at least at this point be a little bit comfortable with being uncomfortable.
But I would say ultimately, I believe we're headed in the right direction. I know of lots of wonderful people locally and nationally that are doing this work and that are advocating for us to use these technologies in the right way. And if we don't, going back to the conversation or what we discussed related to the developers and companies, again, I believe that there are well-meaning companies out there, but if we don't engage, then that's when we can expect that... So Abraham Flexner was not a physician or a healthcare provider. But imagine this person coming in and telling people, I'm not saying that they can't think through this and say what it could and should look like, but he wasn't a physician, a nurse, a pharmacist, a physical therapist, a social worker, an MA, et cetera. He was an educator, but he wasn't a physician. But he was able to come in and say, "This is what it should look like."
I don't think it should happen that way with AI. If we don't have enough clinicians that are learning, and you don't have to be on Capitol Hill, but if we don't have enough people that are saying, "No, this is what it should be like, this is what's happening in real world clinical practice," then the companies, I believe, will dictate how we practice medicine. If it's not the companies, it'll be politicians or other people that'll dictate how we practice medicine. I hope that does not sound dire or overly scary.
Elizabeth Harry:
We've seen it before, right? I mean, if we don't advocate enough in reimbursements, et cetera, other things, those things are dictated for us. And it brings me to this sort of worry that I've had where I look at, so I have a paid subscription to one of these closed models that I use a lot. I don't put anything confidential in there or anything like that. I'm very thoughtful about what I put in there. But boy, has it transformed my ability to run my home and organize my life and made a lot of workflows really easy.
When I compare that to products that are available for some of our workplace use, it's clear to me that there are different tiers, and it depends on what we've paid for and it depends on what guardrails and restrictions we put around them. And it seems like there might be a risk of a two-tier wellbeing future, people that have access to good AI and that understand how to use it to make a digital twin, if you will, as people have spoken about, and then people that are using it like Google, sort of a glorified Google format. What are your thoughts about that and what needs to be put into place to prevent that?
Cornelius James:
Yeah. So it sounds like you're describing a digital divide, but just in a different way. As these technologies become ubiquitous, they're integrated more, I suspect, especially because these are, and this is challenge because we do have to be a bit specific about the type of AI, and I appreciate you being specific with large language models or the generative AI models.
Those are going to become general purpose technologies. And like I said, lots of people already have access to them. But I do think about people in rural communities with internet access or the signal may not be as robust. So those are things that we certainly have to address. But I do suspect that as these technologies become more sort of ingrained in our culture and society, I suspect that they will become less expensive. I suspect that they'll become better.
But my concern is not so much around that divide and that there are some with better, quote, "technologies." I really don't suspect that that's going to be the issue. I get far more concerned about these technologies becoming really good. And now there are some who are able to access a doctor, which is a premium, meaning a human doctor, but others can only access or are only accessing AI. That's what I get a bit more concerned about because these tools are going to become better, they're going to become smarter.
There was a bill, and even in that summit report, they did mention digital doctors, but then there was a bill introduced in Congress, I believe in 2025 or so, where a Congressman US proposed or put a bill forth that would allow states to determine if AI can prescribe medications. I know there were some responses to that from national organizations. And I get it. In my opinion, that's coming, but I do believe that the technologies have to be vetted and so on and so on, and there's going to have to be lots of policies around that. I believe it's coming.
But again, my concern is, because that's coming, does it now become a premium to be able to see a human that can provide that communication, that can provide that touch, that empathy, that can give you what you need human to human, that can understand what you're dealing with, what you're going through? I get a bit more concerned about that divide.
Elizabeth Harry:
Wow. I mean, that's amazing to even think about. And I mean, just envisioning this future where it is sort of optional that your healthcare would involve a human is really profound. And so if you're-
Cornelius James:
Liz, can I just really quickly say?
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah.
Cornelius James:
I get a little bit more concerned about that being the case for marginalized minoritized populations, not just because there's the premium there when it comes to being able to see a clinician. But we did a study relatively recently that it was in JAMA Network Open. It was just like a secondary analysis, and it was looking at older adults' use of digital health technologies. And interestingly, racially minoritized folks, Black folks, Hispanic folks, they used digital health technologies, and this was a surprising finding, they used digital health technologies more often than people that were in a majority population. So that was interesting.
And one of the questions that someone posed to me was, "Well, should we just start pushing this and suggesting that these populations use this more?" I said, "No, we should address the reason why they're not seeing doctors." And I get a little bit concerned about, because of mistrust and distrust of the healthcare system, that people do tend to turn toward these technologies as opposed to humans because of the distrust and the mistrust and so on and so on. So that's a bit tangential, but I think it's sort of related in that I see that potential there too.
Elizabeth Harry:
Well, and it's so interesting because, on the one hand, it's like this idea of the great equalizer that people that have no care right now, is it a step up from where they are? That there's a sort of foreshadowed physician shortage that is quite startling when we look at some of those numbers that have been predicted. And so thinking about, okay, well, are we comparing it to having no care, or are we comparing it to having a human? And then part of the question I start asking myself is, might we get to a point, I think we'll never not want that human connection.
Cornelius James:
I hope not. I hope so.
Elizabeth Harry:
I hope not too. But might we get to the point where the AI is actually maybe better in terms of the cognitive piece of it?
Cornelius James:
Oh, for sure.
Elizabeth Harry:
Right. And so then it's like, are there people that are going to say, "I don't care about that human piece. I want that 100% you've searched everything in the universe that exists related to my symptoms guarantee which a human can't give me in the same way."
Cornelius James:
I think if we go to our medical ethics principles with the autonomy piece, I think that's going to be fine. There are some people that prefer that. There are some patients where I say, "Please take this statin. It's going to be very important," or, "Please take aspirin," and they will not do it. And I think having that agency, having the autonomy to make that decision, if someone would prefer to see AI. But is it available? Meaning is that human, is it accessible? If I needed it, if I really felt. Because at the same time, while my patients will say, "I don't want to take the statin," they know you portal me, I'm going to send it for you, and I'm going to congratulate you for making that decision. But if we're to just not be available, that's another issue.
Elizabeth Harry:
So with all of this, do you think we're at any risk of overmedicalizing AI, treating it like a device problem when it's really sort of maybe a system or operations or kind of human problem?
Cornelius James:
So I think you can probably appreciate that I'm expecting that these technologies are going to get better. They're going to be better at diagnosis, particularly the thinking part of diagnosis. There's already been literature, it's not quite real world clinical practice, but I think many are familiar with that paper published in JAMA Network Open suggesting that AI alone performed better than either humans alone or humans with resources like UpToDate and so on. But it's going to get better. It's going to show, quote, "superhuman performance" that's going to happen.
Bob Wachter wrote a paper in JAMA, I think it was published in 2024 or so, it was around this productivity paradox. And what he suggested was these innovations are going to get better or these technological innovations particularly are going to get better. But there needs to be a parallel innovation in multiple areas for us to successfully integrate these tools into healthcare. There has to be innovation in medical education. There has to be innovation in the culture of healthcare systems, innovation when it comes to teamwork. There has to be so much innovation.
So to your point, yes, I do suspect that it's going to be more of a human problem because the technology's going to get better because people are going to continue to innovate. We see these technologies changing by the month, by every few months or so. But we need to have this parallel race toward innovation when it comes to culture, teaming, education, et cetera, et cetera, that are very, very, and implementation science or implementation. There needs to be the same degree of funding and interest and so on in those areas as well if we're going to see these technologies truly benefit patients and clinicians.
Elizabeth Harry:
It's sort of naming that sociotechnical system. Don't just focus on the technology, but the social piece in which it lives. I love that. So if a clinician's listening, what's one thing they could do Monday morning, next week, to integrate some of these learnings or to try to move a little bit forward in their use of AI?
Cornelius James:
So I suspect that we have folks, I met with someone yesterday, I'm not going to give the number because then they'll know who it was, but they said that they had only used AI a handful of times, and this is someone at Michigan with lots of AI around to use for free. So my opinion is to just try it, not necessarily for a clinical purpose at this point, try it to just see what it does. If you're planning that trip to Chicago, ask AI, what are some hotel, or ask the gen AI or a model, use U-M GPT or something like that, how can I get there? And once I get there, where should I stay? And I'm traveling with my wife and two kids, or my husband and two kids, or my partner and two kids. Ask it, just use it for simple things like that. I want to make spaghetti. Give me a good recipe for making spaghetti. And just sort of see what it does and appreciate some of the benefits, but also the limitations or the challenges associated with it.
And then if you move forward, try something like OpenEvidence, which is freely available and just sort of see where the benefits lie. You'll be able to see, yeah, JAMA, NEJM, the American Diabetes Association are now making their content openly available to this technology. Maybe there's something behind this.
And then maybe you get over to where you say, okay, I'm going to try out this Ambient Scribe thing, see if it really moves the needle or has an impact. I think those are small things that people can do, recognizing that there are folks that are sort of across the spectrum. And I would say if you are a heavy user, try to certainly be respectful of those who are sort of lagging behind, but there's literature suggesting that clinicians or trusted clinicians have a major impact or a significant impact on what their peers do. If we allow people or tell or talk it up or talk about how this technology has actually been helpful in your clinical life, but also maybe even your personal life.
Elizabeth Harry:
I love that. And if you're a healthcare system leader listening to this, and maybe you're sort of bought into the ambient documentation because most health systems seem to be, but you're not sure where you should be thinking next as a leader of a health system, and this is not your space, what would you advise them to be thinking about next week?
Cornelius James:
Oh, I have my bias that's like, I'm going to say education, education, education. I think that's going to be really important to educate the end users. But I would suggest surrounding oneself with, first and foremost, people who their mission, vision, values are aligned with the university, but that also have the technical expertise, the clinical expertise, all of the expertise that's needed to ensure that ultimately we're making... And this is what I love. At Michigan, yes, have we deployed more models than everybody? Have we put out the coolest models? But it's been thoughtful because it's been thoughtful implementation integrate... Would I love to see it go a little faster sometimes? Absolutely. But I believe that it's been thoughtful because the right people are in the room and having these discussions. And when I say the right people, I'm talking about diversity in many ways, the right people are in the room, and therefore that's causing it to actually work well as opposed to not.
Elizabeth Harry:
And we're all patients at some point, but if you're a patient listening to this and thinking about how to incorporate AI into your patient or health or personal wellness journey, what would you say?
Cornelius James:
So the digital literacy question that you asked earlier was really important. You're likely familiar with there's a model that Epic recently released. It's either Emmie or Emma, one of those two, where it's basically a patient facing AI that's going to eventually allow them to ask questions and it's going to explain results and so on and so on.
So those things are coming, and I would suggest very similar to what I mentioned about clinicians, just start to think about using these technologies, maybe in personal life for personal things. And then eventually, once you get to a point where you feel comfortable, it's okay. It is okay to ask the AI questions. But, but, big but, it's going to be very important that you also consult with your healthcare provider to ensure that some of the recommendations, the suggestions from the AI, are actually evidence-based, safe, and appropriate for you. So I think engaging with the technology's great idea, but it's important, just like the clinicians, to do so in a safe and responsible manner.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah, to get that wisdom.
Cornelius James:
Yeah, for sure.
Elizabeth Harry:
Well, I mean, this has been incredible and I have learned so much. So thank you so much, Dr. James, for sharing your insights on the evolving-
Cornelius James:
You said Cornelius though.
Elizabeth Harry:
Yeah, but we're closing it.
Cornelius James:
Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm kidding.
Elizabeth Harry:
But no, no, it's perfect. So thank you for sharing your insights on the evolving landscape of AI and healthcare. And we've covered lots of things from building true AI literacy in clinicians to leaders to patients, which we all are, of course, to pitfalls in how we think about the different types of models and model evaluation and governance, and why motivations behind these things matter, and having the right minds at the table to really think through this, thinking about how language-based AI can affect wellbeing, and where we need to be really thoughtful to make sure that if we're doing this to give access and to help create access where we're having access issues, that's wonderful. If it creates access issues, because we sort of start filtering people through AI instead of having that human experience, that we really need to watch for that.
And as the JAMA Summit Report suggests, this transformation is well underway and our challenge is to close the gap between the technological innovation and meaningful oversight as well as the social piece that you talked about and that wisdom. I really love that. And it's clear that interdisciplinary collaboration and patient-centered thinking has to be at the center, the humanness of this. I really appreciated that.
So to our audience, thank you for joining. Keep asking critical questions, stay curious, consider how you can foster more informed use of AI in your day-to-day. We have links and resources in the show notes to Michigan AI resources available to improve your daily workflows. And come join us again. Thank you, and thank you so much for joining.
Cornelius James:
Thank you.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.uofmhealth.org/well-being-michigan-medicine/ai-well-being-and-human-connection
From perfect GPA to fungal diets: Georgia's journey into conservation
TOOWOOMBA, Australia, Sept. 23 -- The University of Southern Queensland posted the following news:
* * *
From perfect GPA to fungal diets: Georgia's journey into conservation
*
With a surname like Fox, it is perhaps no surprise that Georgia Fox grew up as an "animal kid" with a passion for wildlife and ecology.
That passion has taken Georgia from university study and fieldwork into a career protecting Australia's environment. Earlier this year, she graduated from the University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ) with a Bachelor of Science (Honours), achieving a perfect GPA of 7.0 and receiving ... Show Full Article TOOWOOMBA, Australia, Sept. 23 -- The University of Southern Queensland posted the following news: * * * From perfect GPA to fungal diets: Georgia's journey into conservation * With a surname like Fox, it is perhaps no surprise that Georgia Fox grew up as an "animal kid" with a passion for wildlife and ecology. That passion has taken Georgia from university study and fieldwork into a career protecting Australia's environment. Earlier this year, she graduated from the University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ) with a Bachelor of Science (Honours), achieving a perfect GPA of 7.0 and receivinga University Medal in recognition of her academic excellence. She was also selected as the valedictorian for her graduation ceremony.
Georgia's honours research explored the fungal diets of small mammals in southeast Queensland, investigating the role fungi may play in the diets of native species including bush rats, melomys and antechinus.
Now working as a Biosecurity Officer with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Georgia has also been named an Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (ACEDD) Scholar for 2025.
We spoke with Georgia about her university experience, her research, and her passion for protecting Australia's unique environment.
#Congratulations on being named an Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (ACEDD) Scholar for 2025. What does this recognition mean to you, and what opportunities do you hope it will create?
I was honoured to be nominated for this award by my amazing supervisors from UniSQ. It means a lot to me for my work to be recognised in this way, and I hope it will create more opportunities for me to progress my career in the conservation industry as well as opportunities for further study in the future.
#You graduated earlier this year with a perfect GPA of 7.0 and received a University Medal. Looking back, what are you most proud of from your time at UniSQ?
I'm really proud of the relationships I built with fellow students as well as with academic staff. Nothing can be accomplished without the support of the people around you. But I'm also proud of the work I did as part of my honours project. I was able to propose a research topic I was passionate about and was lucky enough to receive support from my supervisors to develop and pursue the project from start to finish. It was a big undertaking and I learned a lot, not just about the research topic but about my own capacity, resilience and determination, and I'm very proud of the results I received as well as the finished thesis.
#Achieving a perfect GPA is no small feat. What do you think was the key to your academic success?
The key to success for me was following my interests. I often looked forward to hitting the books at the end of the day because the material I was learning was always exciting to me. Even when taking courses that weren't 100 per cent aligned with what I eventually wanted to do, I recognised where there were opportunities to apply what I was learning to my future career or to my future studies. The flexibility provided by UniSQ was also a massive help. My coursework provided opportunities for me to explore areas that I wanted to and to tailor assessment pieces to topics I genuinely wanted to learn more about. In general, I'm someone who loves to learn but being able to align my degree with what I was passionate about meant that there was never a dull moment.
#What first sparked your interest in ecology and wildlife science, and why did you decide to pursue honours research in this field?
It's tough to pinpoint where my interest started. I was an animal kid and I spent a lot of time outdoors from a young age. I decided to pursue ecology as I got older and particularly honours research because I was interested in the processes that help ecosystems function. As I learned more about the field I found out how much we still must learn as a scientific community and I wanted to play a part in contributing to research that might eventually help to protect our ecosystems. Plus getting to see our amazing native wildlife in their natural environment is an experience like no other.
#Your honours research explored the fungal diets of small mammals such as rodents and antechinus. Can you explain your project and its findings in simple terms?
The project looked at the fungal diets of small mammals and the methods used to study them. My research focused on four small mammal species in southeast Queensland, where very little previous research on this topic had been conducted, and found that all four species consumed fungi. This was the first recorded instance of fungal consumption, known as mycophagy, for two of the species. Interestingly, all four species consumed a similar diversity of fungi. This was particularly notable because the bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) is already well known for eating fungi, while much less was known about the diets of the other species. The findings suggest these other small mammals - the fawn-footed melomys (Melomys cervinipes) and the two Antechinus species (Antechinus subtropicus and Antechinus mysticus) - may consume fungi more regularly than previously thought.
#For many people, studying animal scat under a microscope might sound unusual. What was the most surprising or interesting thing you discovered during the research process?
I was particularly interested to see the diversity of fungi in the diets of the Antechinus species as they are generally considered carnivorous. The fungal diets of the broader dasyurid group should be examined further as the nutritional implications could be quite interesting. However, the most surprising findings were probably the differences in the fungal taxa detected between the two methods (microscopy and eDNA). While common taxa were detected across the two methods, each method also identified taxa not detected using the other, so I hope the methods can be further refined into a standard protocol for a variety of research groups to use. The detection of entomopathogenic (insect pathogens) fungi using eDNA was also of particular interest and I hope further research can be conducted to determine if mammals play a role in the secondary dispersal of these fungi.
#Why is understanding the relationship between small mammals and fungi important for Australian ecosystems?
It's important to look at the fungi in the diets of our small native mammals as they play a role in dispersing fungal spores through ecosystems. This is particularly relevant for mycorrhizal fungal species which form symbiotic relationships with a variety of plant species. However, it is also relevant for pathogenic and saprophytic fungal species as they also play important roles in ecosystem functioning. We still have a lot to learn about the fungal kingdom, especially in an Australian context, and understanding these relationships between organisms will lead to more informed ecosystem management and conservation.
#What advice would you give to students considering studying environmental science, ecology or wildlife science at university, and why would you recommend UniSQ?
To go for it! University study, particularly in a field that you are truly interested in, is so rewarding and fulfilling. And to echo a piece of advice from one of my professors, get out into the bush as often as possible, every weekend if you can. Not only will you learn more about the environment, plants, wildlife and fungi you are studying, but when things get tough, it's a great reminder of why you wanted to dedicate yourself to study in the first place. I would also genuinely recommend UniSQ to anyone considering studying wildlife or environmental science. The programs are well designed, and I have been genuinely in awe of what I have been able to learn during my studies. The teaching staff are passionate and inspiring, there are so many opportunities for students, and you can make the courses work for you, no matter what your goals are.
#You currently work as a Biosecurity Officer with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can you tell us about your role and what you enjoy most about the work?
I'm currently a team leader for the plant inspections team in Brisbane. We inspect plant material coming into the country to ensure it's free from biosecurity risk material such as insects, weed seeds or potential pathogens. There are so many things I enjoy about the work and I feel like I learn something new every day, but what I enjoy most is getting to work with amazing, supportive people who are dedicated to protecting Australia's unique environment. And when I go bushwalking on the weekends, I get to feel like what I do during the week makes a difference.
***
Original text here: https://www.unisq.edu.au/news/2026/09/georgia-fox-conservation-journey
* * *
From perfect GPA to fungal diets: Georgia's journey into conservation
*
With a surname like Fox, it is perhaps no surprise that Georgia Fox grew up as an "animal kid" with a passion for wildlife and ecology.
That passion has taken Georgia from university study and fieldwork into a career protecting Australia's environment. Earlier this year, she graduated from the University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ) with a Bachelor of Science (Honours), achieving a perfect GPA of 7.0 and receiving ... Show Full Article TOOWOOMBA, Australia, Sept. 23 -- The University of Southern Queensland posted the following news: * * * From perfect GPA to fungal diets: Georgia's journey into conservation * With a surname like Fox, it is perhaps no surprise that Georgia Fox grew up as an "animal kid" with a passion for wildlife and ecology. That passion has taken Georgia from university study and fieldwork into a career protecting Australia's environment. Earlier this year, she graduated from the University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ) with a Bachelor of Science (Honours), achieving a perfect GPA of 7.0 and receivinga University Medal in recognition of her academic excellence. She was also selected as the valedictorian for her graduation ceremony.
Georgia's honours research explored the fungal diets of small mammals in southeast Queensland, investigating the role fungi may play in the diets of native species including bush rats, melomys and antechinus.
Now working as a Biosecurity Officer with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Georgia has also been named an Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (ACEDD) Scholar for 2025.
We spoke with Georgia about her university experience, her research, and her passion for protecting Australia's unique environment.
#Congratulations on being named an Australian Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (ACEDD) Scholar for 2025. What does this recognition mean to you, and what opportunities do you hope it will create?
I was honoured to be nominated for this award by my amazing supervisors from UniSQ. It means a lot to me for my work to be recognised in this way, and I hope it will create more opportunities for me to progress my career in the conservation industry as well as opportunities for further study in the future.
#You graduated earlier this year with a perfect GPA of 7.0 and received a University Medal. Looking back, what are you most proud of from your time at UniSQ?
I'm really proud of the relationships I built with fellow students as well as with academic staff. Nothing can be accomplished without the support of the people around you. But I'm also proud of the work I did as part of my honours project. I was able to propose a research topic I was passionate about and was lucky enough to receive support from my supervisors to develop and pursue the project from start to finish. It was a big undertaking and I learned a lot, not just about the research topic but about my own capacity, resilience and determination, and I'm very proud of the results I received as well as the finished thesis.
#Achieving a perfect GPA is no small feat. What do you think was the key to your academic success?
The key to success for me was following my interests. I often looked forward to hitting the books at the end of the day because the material I was learning was always exciting to me. Even when taking courses that weren't 100 per cent aligned with what I eventually wanted to do, I recognised where there were opportunities to apply what I was learning to my future career or to my future studies. The flexibility provided by UniSQ was also a massive help. My coursework provided opportunities for me to explore areas that I wanted to and to tailor assessment pieces to topics I genuinely wanted to learn more about. In general, I'm someone who loves to learn but being able to align my degree with what I was passionate about meant that there was never a dull moment.
#What first sparked your interest in ecology and wildlife science, and why did you decide to pursue honours research in this field?
It's tough to pinpoint where my interest started. I was an animal kid and I spent a lot of time outdoors from a young age. I decided to pursue ecology as I got older and particularly honours research because I was interested in the processes that help ecosystems function. As I learned more about the field I found out how much we still must learn as a scientific community and I wanted to play a part in contributing to research that might eventually help to protect our ecosystems. Plus getting to see our amazing native wildlife in their natural environment is an experience like no other.
#Your honours research explored the fungal diets of small mammals such as rodents and antechinus. Can you explain your project and its findings in simple terms?
The project looked at the fungal diets of small mammals and the methods used to study them. My research focused on four small mammal species in southeast Queensland, where very little previous research on this topic had been conducted, and found that all four species consumed fungi. This was the first recorded instance of fungal consumption, known as mycophagy, for two of the species. Interestingly, all four species consumed a similar diversity of fungi. This was particularly notable because the bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) is already well known for eating fungi, while much less was known about the diets of the other species. The findings suggest these other small mammals - the fawn-footed melomys (Melomys cervinipes) and the two Antechinus species (Antechinus subtropicus and Antechinus mysticus) - may consume fungi more regularly than previously thought.
#For many people, studying animal scat under a microscope might sound unusual. What was the most surprising or interesting thing you discovered during the research process?
I was particularly interested to see the diversity of fungi in the diets of the Antechinus species as they are generally considered carnivorous. The fungal diets of the broader dasyurid group should be examined further as the nutritional implications could be quite interesting. However, the most surprising findings were probably the differences in the fungal taxa detected between the two methods (microscopy and eDNA). While common taxa were detected across the two methods, each method also identified taxa not detected using the other, so I hope the methods can be further refined into a standard protocol for a variety of research groups to use. The detection of entomopathogenic (insect pathogens) fungi using eDNA was also of particular interest and I hope further research can be conducted to determine if mammals play a role in the secondary dispersal of these fungi.
#Why is understanding the relationship between small mammals and fungi important for Australian ecosystems?
It's important to look at the fungi in the diets of our small native mammals as they play a role in dispersing fungal spores through ecosystems. This is particularly relevant for mycorrhizal fungal species which form symbiotic relationships with a variety of plant species. However, it is also relevant for pathogenic and saprophytic fungal species as they also play important roles in ecosystem functioning. We still have a lot to learn about the fungal kingdom, especially in an Australian context, and understanding these relationships between organisms will lead to more informed ecosystem management and conservation.
#What advice would you give to students considering studying environmental science, ecology or wildlife science at university, and why would you recommend UniSQ?
To go for it! University study, particularly in a field that you are truly interested in, is so rewarding and fulfilling. And to echo a piece of advice from one of my professors, get out into the bush as often as possible, every weekend if you can. Not only will you learn more about the environment, plants, wildlife and fungi you are studying, but when things get tough, it's a great reminder of why you wanted to dedicate yourself to study in the first place. I would also genuinely recommend UniSQ to anyone considering studying wildlife or environmental science. The programs are well designed, and I have been genuinely in awe of what I have been able to learn during my studies. The teaching staff are passionate and inspiring, there are so many opportunities for students, and you can make the courses work for you, no matter what your goals are.
#You currently work as a Biosecurity Officer with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can you tell us about your role and what you enjoy most about the work?
I'm currently a team leader for the plant inspections team in Brisbane. We inspect plant material coming into the country to ensure it's free from biosecurity risk material such as insects, weed seeds or potential pathogens. There are so many things I enjoy about the work and I feel like I learn something new every day, but what I enjoy most is getting to work with amazing, supportive people who are dedicated to protecting Australia's unique environment. And when I go bushwalking on the weekends, I get to feel like what I do during the week makes a difference.
***
Original text here: https://www.unisq.edu.au/news/2026/09/georgia-fox-conservation-journey
An Even Dozen: ASU Named No. 1 in Innovation for 12th Straight Year
TEMPE, Arizona, Sept. 23 -- Arizona State University issued the following news:
* * *
An even dozen: ASU named No. 1 in innovation for 12th straight year
University also garners No. 1 spot in U.S. for supply chain management, plus 24 more top-20 rankings among public institutions
By Mary Beth Faller | September 21, 2026
Story highlights
* ASU has placed first every year since the "Most Innovative Schools" category was created by U.S. News & World Report magazine.
* W. P. Carey School of Business' undergraduate supply-chain management program is ranked No. 1 among all universities, public ... Show Full Article TEMPE, Arizona, Sept. 23 -- Arizona State University issued the following news: * * * An even dozen: ASU named No. 1 in innovation for 12th straight year University also garners No. 1 spot in U.S. for supply chain management, plus 24 more top-20 rankings among public institutions By Mary Beth Faller | September 21, 2026 Story highlights * ASU has placed first every year since the "Most Innovative Schools" category was created by U.S. News & World Report magazine. * W. P. Carey School of Business' undergraduate supply-chain management program is ranked No. 1 among all universities, publicand private.
* In addition to supply chain management, ASU had 24 more top-20 rankings among public institutions.
As Arizona State University works to improve the landscape of higher education, its peers have once again noticed.
For the 12th consecutive year, ASU has been ranked No. 1 in innovation by U.S. News & World Report, earning the top spot in the publication's 2027 "Best Colleges" rankings, ahead of MIT and Stanford.
ASU has placed first every year since the "Most Innovative Schools" category was created by U.S. News & World Report magazine in 2015, each time coming in ahead of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.
The ranking is based on a survey of college presidents, provosts and admissions deans, asking them to name the institutions they think are making the most innovative improvements in curriculum, faculty, students, campus life, technology or facilities.
"Knowledge and technology are advancing at an unprecedented rate, and the significant ramifications for our world are evident," ASU President Michael M. Crow said. "At ASU, we believe it is imperative that higher education improve its clock speed and its ability to responsibly innovate and integrate education, research and tech at scale to better serve the needs of an increasingly complex world."
The latest rankings also placed ASU No. 1 among all universities, public and private, for its undergraduate supply-chain management program, in the W. P. Carey School of Business, ahead of MIT, Michigan State University and the University of Texas.
Additionally, ASU ranked highly among national public universities in several important areas:
* No. 4 for first-year student experience.
* No. 7 for learning communities, which is cohort-based learning.
* No. 8 for undergraduate teaching programs.
In an area critical for career building, ASU ranked No. 3 among public universities for senior capstone projects and No. 9 among publics for undergraduate/creative projects.
Joins a stable of top rankings
In addition to the U.S. News standings, ASU has recently placed highly in other rankings for sustainability and impact:
U.N. goals: For the seventh consecutive year, ASU was ranked No. 1 in the U.S. for work toward the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, announced by Times Higher Education in its 2026 Sustainability Impact Ratings. The rankings measure how institutions worldwide advance sustainability toward fulfilling 17 specific objectives designed to create a better world by 2030 -- goals that serve as a collective framework for promoting environmental sustainability, as well as peace and prosperity for all.
Campus sustainability: ASU was ranked No. 1 in the U.S. and No. 2 in the world in the 2026 Sustainable Campus Index, earning its fourth consecutive Platinum rating through the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System, or STARS -- ahead of Cornell University, Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. The distinction places ASU among only 19 institutions globally to achieve the highest possible STARS rating and reflects broad performance across academics, climate action, operations, engagement and institutional leadership.
Digital leadership: ASU ranked fourth among U.S. public universities for developing the next generation of digital and AI-ready leaders by the Digital Leaders in Higher Education Survey, which ranked ASU 17th among all American universities -- public and private.
Employability: The newest Global Employability University Ranking and Survey, or GEURS, again ranked ASU second among public U.S. universities for employable graduates -- ahead of UCLA, the University of Michigan and Purdue. Among all U.S. institutions, ASU was ranked No. 14. Globally, the university is ranked No. 37, ahead of the University of Melbourne, LMU Munich and King's College London.
New approaches to higher education
This year, ASU has made advances in innovating higher education:
John Shufeldt School of Medicine and Medical Engineering: The first cohort of students began classes in this first-of-its-kind initiative that integrates medicine, engineering and systems thinking to improve care for individual patients and communities.
ASU London: Students began studying this independent, U.K.-degree-awarding higher education provider founded by ASU, where they can complete a three-year bachelor's degree and then pursue an accelerated one-year master's degree at ASU.
Three-year bachelor's degree in education: Believed to be the nation's first three-year bachelor's degrees in education from a public university, it provides education students the option of an accelerated curriculum for certain paths.
Professor will.i.am: The musician, tech founder and philanthropist will.i.am taught a class in which nearly 80 students learned how to create personalized AI agents that can autonomously reason, research and generate while reflecting a person's values, voice and goals.
The Foundry School: ASU is among eight universities selected to lead a U.S. Department of State initiative focused on preparing the next generation of workers to advance American manufacturing.
Operation Comeback: This initiative helps Arizona residents who started college at ASU but did not complete their degree return and finish what they started with financial, academic and personal support.
Research that makes an impact
ASU researchers are working on ways to improve peoples' lives in several areas:
Health: An ASU professor in The Design School has created a new kind of green-enriched white light, suitable for all uses, that eases light sensitivity among people who get migraine headaches, while researchers in the ASU Biodesign Center for Health Through Microbiomes developed a new urine test to screen children for autism.
Sustainability: The Center for Hydrologic Innovations was able, for the first time, to quantify changes in Arizona's snowpack using airborne observations, which can help SRP manage the water supply. Students are collecting data in a partnership that will help the Arizona Department of Transportation better manage irrigation along freeways.
National security: Since 2018, ASU has seen a threefold increase in defense-related research expenditures and is on track to reach nearly $100 million Department of Defense expenditures this fiscal year -- among the top universities for defense-related research. ASU has elevated its defense work to create the Advanced Capabilities for National Security Institute and launched the Center for Agriculture and National Security, dedicated to securing U.S. food systems from foreign threats.
Other fields in latest US News ranking
In the U.S. News & World Report ranking, ASU also placed in the top 20 among public universities in these undergraduate areas:
* No. 4 for business analytics, ahead of Texas, Indiana University and the University of Texas at Dallas.
* No. 8 for accounting, ahead of the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin and the University of Virginia.
* No. 8 for entrepreneurship, ahead of the University of Maryland, the University of Washington and Georgia Tech.
* No. 8 for management information systems, ahead of the University of Michigan, UC Berkeley and UT Dallas.
* No. 9 for computer science-computer systems, along with Wisconsin, Texas and UC San Diego.
* No. 9 for business management, ahead of Ohio State University, Michigan State and the University of Minnesota.
* No. 9 for production/operations, ahead of Minnesota, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Texas A&M.
* No. 11 for environment/environmental health engineering, ahead of Penn State and Ohio State.
* No. 11 for marketing, ahead of Minnesota, Michigan State and Maryland.
* No. 12 for cybersecurity, along with Michigan, Texas and UCLA.
* No. 12 for electrical/electronic/communications engineering, ahead of Washington and Wisconsin.
* No. 12 for industrial/manufacturing engineering, along with the University of Florida.
* No. 12 for international business.
* No. 13 for computer engineering, ahead of Virginia Tech.
* No. 13 for finance, along with Wisconsin, Penn State and Washington.
* No. 14 for aerospace/aeronautical/astronautical, along with Ohio State.
* No. 15 for civil engineering, ahead of UC San Diego, Ohio State and Washington.
* No. 18 for undergraduate engineering (doctorate), ahead of UC Santa Barbara, Rutgers University and Michigan State.
* No. 19 for undergraduate business, ahead of the University of Colorado-Boulder, Michigan State and UT Dallas.
* * *
Original text here: https://news.asu.edu/20260921-university-news-asu-no-1-innovation-12th-year
* * *
An even dozen: ASU named No. 1 in innovation for 12th straight year
University also garners No. 1 spot in U.S. for supply chain management, plus 24 more top-20 rankings among public institutions
By Mary Beth Faller | September 21, 2026
Story highlights
* ASU has placed first every year since the "Most Innovative Schools" category was created by U.S. News & World Report magazine.
* W. P. Carey School of Business' undergraduate supply-chain management program is ranked No. 1 among all universities, public ... Show Full Article TEMPE, Arizona, Sept. 23 -- Arizona State University issued the following news: * * * An even dozen: ASU named No. 1 in innovation for 12th straight year University also garners No. 1 spot in U.S. for supply chain management, plus 24 more top-20 rankings among public institutions By Mary Beth Faller | September 21, 2026 Story highlights * ASU has placed first every year since the "Most Innovative Schools" category was created by U.S. News & World Report magazine. * W. P. Carey School of Business' undergraduate supply-chain management program is ranked No. 1 among all universities, publicand private.
* In addition to supply chain management, ASU had 24 more top-20 rankings among public institutions.
As Arizona State University works to improve the landscape of higher education, its peers have once again noticed.
For the 12th consecutive year, ASU has been ranked No. 1 in innovation by U.S. News & World Report, earning the top spot in the publication's 2027 "Best Colleges" rankings, ahead of MIT and Stanford.
ASU has placed first every year since the "Most Innovative Schools" category was created by U.S. News & World Report magazine in 2015, each time coming in ahead of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.
The ranking is based on a survey of college presidents, provosts and admissions deans, asking them to name the institutions they think are making the most innovative improvements in curriculum, faculty, students, campus life, technology or facilities.
"Knowledge and technology are advancing at an unprecedented rate, and the significant ramifications for our world are evident," ASU President Michael M. Crow said. "At ASU, we believe it is imperative that higher education improve its clock speed and its ability to responsibly innovate and integrate education, research and tech at scale to better serve the needs of an increasingly complex world."
The latest rankings also placed ASU No. 1 among all universities, public and private, for its undergraduate supply-chain management program, in the W. P. Carey School of Business, ahead of MIT, Michigan State University and the University of Texas.
Additionally, ASU ranked highly among national public universities in several important areas:
* No. 4 for first-year student experience.
* No. 7 for learning communities, which is cohort-based learning.
* No. 8 for undergraduate teaching programs.
In an area critical for career building, ASU ranked No. 3 among public universities for senior capstone projects and No. 9 among publics for undergraduate/creative projects.
Joins a stable of top rankings
In addition to the U.S. News standings, ASU has recently placed highly in other rankings for sustainability and impact:
U.N. goals: For the seventh consecutive year, ASU was ranked No. 1 in the U.S. for work toward the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, announced by Times Higher Education in its 2026 Sustainability Impact Ratings. The rankings measure how institutions worldwide advance sustainability toward fulfilling 17 specific objectives designed to create a better world by 2030 -- goals that serve as a collective framework for promoting environmental sustainability, as well as peace and prosperity for all.
Campus sustainability: ASU was ranked No. 1 in the U.S. and No. 2 in the world in the 2026 Sustainable Campus Index, earning its fourth consecutive Platinum rating through the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System, or STARS -- ahead of Cornell University, Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. The distinction places ASU among only 19 institutions globally to achieve the highest possible STARS rating and reflects broad performance across academics, climate action, operations, engagement and institutional leadership.
Digital leadership: ASU ranked fourth among U.S. public universities for developing the next generation of digital and AI-ready leaders by the Digital Leaders in Higher Education Survey, which ranked ASU 17th among all American universities -- public and private.
Employability: The newest Global Employability University Ranking and Survey, or GEURS, again ranked ASU second among public U.S. universities for employable graduates -- ahead of UCLA, the University of Michigan and Purdue. Among all U.S. institutions, ASU was ranked No. 14. Globally, the university is ranked No. 37, ahead of the University of Melbourne, LMU Munich and King's College London.
New approaches to higher education
This year, ASU has made advances in innovating higher education:
John Shufeldt School of Medicine and Medical Engineering: The first cohort of students began classes in this first-of-its-kind initiative that integrates medicine, engineering and systems thinking to improve care for individual patients and communities.
ASU London: Students began studying this independent, U.K.-degree-awarding higher education provider founded by ASU, where they can complete a three-year bachelor's degree and then pursue an accelerated one-year master's degree at ASU.
Three-year bachelor's degree in education: Believed to be the nation's first three-year bachelor's degrees in education from a public university, it provides education students the option of an accelerated curriculum for certain paths.
Professor will.i.am: The musician, tech founder and philanthropist will.i.am taught a class in which nearly 80 students learned how to create personalized AI agents that can autonomously reason, research and generate while reflecting a person's values, voice and goals.
The Foundry School: ASU is among eight universities selected to lead a U.S. Department of State initiative focused on preparing the next generation of workers to advance American manufacturing.
Operation Comeback: This initiative helps Arizona residents who started college at ASU but did not complete their degree return and finish what they started with financial, academic and personal support.
Research that makes an impact
ASU researchers are working on ways to improve peoples' lives in several areas:
Health: An ASU professor in The Design School has created a new kind of green-enriched white light, suitable for all uses, that eases light sensitivity among people who get migraine headaches, while researchers in the ASU Biodesign Center for Health Through Microbiomes developed a new urine test to screen children for autism.
Sustainability: The Center for Hydrologic Innovations was able, for the first time, to quantify changes in Arizona's snowpack using airborne observations, which can help SRP manage the water supply. Students are collecting data in a partnership that will help the Arizona Department of Transportation better manage irrigation along freeways.
National security: Since 2018, ASU has seen a threefold increase in defense-related research expenditures and is on track to reach nearly $100 million Department of Defense expenditures this fiscal year -- among the top universities for defense-related research. ASU has elevated its defense work to create the Advanced Capabilities for National Security Institute and launched the Center for Agriculture and National Security, dedicated to securing U.S. food systems from foreign threats.
Other fields in latest US News ranking
In the U.S. News & World Report ranking, ASU also placed in the top 20 among public universities in these undergraduate areas:
* No. 4 for business analytics, ahead of Texas, Indiana University and the University of Texas at Dallas.
* No. 8 for accounting, ahead of the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin and the University of Virginia.
* No. 8 for entrepreneurship, ahead of the University of Maryland, the University of Washington and Georgia Tech.
* No. 8 for management information systems, ahead of the University of Michigan, UC Berkeley and UT Dallas.
* No. 9 for computer science-computer systems, along with Wisconsin, Texas and UC San Diego.
* No. 9 for business management, ahead of Ohio State University, Michigan State and the University of Minnesota.
* No. 9 for production/operations, ahead of Minnesota, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Texas A&M.
* No. 11 for environment/environmental health engineering, ahead of Penn State and Ohio State.
* No. 11 for marketing, ahead of Minnesota, Michigan State and Maryland.
* No. 12 for cybersecurity, along with Michigan, Texas and UCLA.
* No. 12 for electrical/electronic/communications engineering, ahead of Washington and Wisconsin.
* No. 12 for industrial/manufacturing engineering, along with the University of Florida.
* No. 12 for international business.
* No. 13 for computer engineering, ahead of Virginia Tech.
* No. 13 for finance, along with Wisconsin, Penn State and Washington.
* No. 14 for aerospace/aeronautical/astronautical, along with Ohio State.
* No. 15 for civil engineering, ahead of UC San Diego, Ohio State and Washington.
* No. 18 for undergraduate engineering (doctorate), ahead of UC Santa Barbara, Rutgers University and Michigan State.
* No. 19 for undergraduate business, ahead of the University of Colorado-Boulder, Michigan State and UT Dallas.
* * *
Original text here: https://news.asu.edu/20260921-university-news-asu-no-1-innovation-12th-year