Artificial Intelligence and Clinical Decision Making: The New Nature of Medical Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates in a 1989 study indicated that physicians in the United States were unable to reach a diagnosis that accounted for their patient's symptoms in up to 90% of outpatient patient encounters. Many proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) see the current process of moving from clinical data gathering to medical diagnosis as being limited by human analytic capability and expect AI to be a valuable tool to refine this process. The use of AI fundamentally calls into question the extent to which uncertainty in medical decision making is tolerated. Uncertainty is perceived by some as fundamentally undesirable and thus, for them, optimal decision making should be based on minimizing uncertainty. However, uncertainty cannot be reduced to zero; thus, relative uncertainty can be used as a metric to weigh the likelihood of various diagnoses being correct and the appropriateness of treatments. Here, the authors make the argument, using as examples the experiences of 2 AI systems, IBM Watson on Jeopardy and Watson for Oncology, that medical decision making based on relative uncertainty provides a better lens for understanding the application of AI to medicine than one that minimizes uncertainty. This approach to uncertainty has significant implications for how health care leaders consider the benefits and trade-offs of AI-assisted and AI-driven decision tools and ultimately integrate AI into medical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".