Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42054671›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2026

A New Model for Youth-Driven Community Change: Exploratory Testing of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Citizen Science.

Eduardo De la Vega-Taboada, Sofia A Portillo, Lina Maria Gomez-Garcia, Ann Banchoff, Victoria Maria Bermudez, Diana M Chavez, Tate Isabella Sgaraglino, Eugenia Flores Millender, Olga L Sarmiento, Abby C King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Eduardo De la Vega-TaboadaDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5279-8929
Sofia A PortilloDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4770-231X
Lina Maria Gomez-GarciaSchool of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0428-7865
Ann BanchoffDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0185-2200
Victoria Maria BermudezDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0991-872X
Diana M ChavezDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6050-8302
Tate Isabella SgaraglinoDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4546-1291
Eugenia Flores MillenderCollege of Nursing, Center of Population Science for Health Empowerment, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3042-9046
Olga L SarmientoSchool of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9190-3568
Abby C KingDepartment of Epidemiology & Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7949-8811

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used in health and community settings, yet empirical evidence on how they function within participatory, youth-led action frameworks remains limited. Large language models can provide structured feedback to support planning and critical reflection, and AI-based image transformation can generate realistic visual prototypes to enhance shared understanding. However, risks include output variability, feasibility gaps when AI-generated recommendations or visualizations imply solutions that are not operationally workable, and the potential to displace adolescent voice and agency if AI outputs are treated as authoritative rather than as inputs for collective deliberation.

objectiveThis study examines how 2 generative AI tools-structured feedback using a GPT model and AI-based image transformation-functioned as deliberative and visualization supports within a youth-led citizen science intervention addressing environmental health concerns in El Pozón, Cartagena, Colombia.

methodsThis exploratory action research study included a preparation phase and an implementation phase. During preparation, researchers iteratively tested SecureGPT (a privacy-enhanced version of ChatGPT 4.0) prompt configurations and compared DALL-E with Adobe Photoshop AI for place-based image modification, selecting a fixed prompt format requesting 3 strengths, 3 weaknesses, and 5 reflective questions (3-3-5). During implementation, 12 adolescent citizen scientists completed the Our Voice process. AI use was facilitator-mediated: prompts were co-developed through youth consensus, a facilitator entered prompts and operated tools while youth observed, and outputs were reviewed with the group in real time before use. Data sources included structured field notes, analytic memos, archived prompts and outputs, and session recordings. Analysis was descriptive and process-oriented, examining how AI shaped deliberation, solution refinement, and stakeholder engagement.

resultsStructured GPT prompts supported deeper critical analysis and iterative refinement toward more feasible interventions. Model outputs varied in usefulness; role-based prompting often produced redundant responses, and early outputs were occasionally overly generic, requiring facilitator guidance and prompt refinement. The structured 3-3-5 format improved specificity and reduced wordiness. DALL-E did not generate sufficiently realistic place-based modifications, whereas Adobe Photoshop AI, used with iterative prompting and area-selection tools, produced visually plausible prototypes that supported group discussion and stakeholder communication. Highly realistic visualizations also introduced a feasibility gap when depicted infrastructure exceeded operational constraints, requiring explicit framing of images as aspirational prototypes rather than technical designs.

conclusionsIn this facilitated participatory context, generative AI tools served as structured deliberative and visualization supports rather than autonomous decision makers. For participatory action and citizen science researchers, these findings suggest a practical workflow in which structured prompting, real-time group review, and domain-informed oversight can help participants refine feasible solutions, strengthen communication with stakeholders, and document iterative decision-making while managing variability, accuracy, privacy, and feasibility alignment.

Indexed as

action researchGPThealth-environment interactionlarge language modelsstakeholder engagementyouth-led citizen sciences

Identifiers

PMID42054671
PMCPMC13173061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.