ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Participatory-informed preference optimization (PiPrO): A reinforcement learning simulation study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformative potential in public health, but its impact is limited by models that implicitly prioritize a single stakeholder perspective and do not make explicit and tunable trade-offs between community and clinician endorsement. To address this gap, we introduce Participatory-informed Preference Optimization (PiPrO), a large language model embedding-based calibration framework that generates a single clinical outcome prediction while explicitly accounting for differences between community and physician interpretations of the same scenario. PiPrO takes as input two embeddings derived from a large language model representing a community-facing context and a physician-facing context. It then applies a shared lightweight feedforward predictor to produce per-stakeholder scores which are then mixed using a single global mixing weight (alpha). Alpha controls how strongly the final prediction reflects the community versus physician responses and is learned using a policy-gradient update driven by an abundant but noisy community text and a sparse and biased physician text. PiPrO reliably learned stable alpha values and a consistent reward signal. Alpha shifts systematically toward physician weighting as community feedback becomes noisier and shifts toward community weighting as physician feedback becomes more biased. Our results suggest PiPrO's potential to produce more transparent, and context-sensitive AI-driven healthcare recommendations. Future research should validate this approach using real-world community inputs to ensure generalizability and practical impact.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.