Toward an Ecologically Valid Conceptual Framework for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Settings: Need for Systems Thinking, Accountability, Decision-making, Trust, and Patient Safety Considerations in Safeguarding the Technology and Clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health care management and the medical practitioner literature lack a descriptive conceptual framework for understanding the dynamic and complex interactions between clinicians and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. As most of the existing literature has been investigating AI's performance and effectiveness from a statistical (analytical) standpoint, there is a lack of studies ensuring AI's ecological validity. In this study, we derived a framework that focuses explicitly on the interaction between AI and clinicians. The proposed framework builds upon well-established human factors models such as the technology acceptance model and expectancy theory. The framework can be used to perform quantitative and qualitative analyses (mixed methods) to capture how clinician-AI interactions may vary based on human factors such as expectancy, workload, trust, cognitive variables related to absorptive capacity and bounded rationality, and concerns for patient safety. If leveraged, the proposed framework can help to identify factors influencing clinicians' intention to use AI and, consequently, improve AI acceptance and address the lack of AI accountability while safeguarding the patients, clinicians, and AI technology. Overall, this paper discusses the concepts, propositions, and assumptions of the multidisciplinary decision-making literature, constituting a sociocognitive approach that extends the theories of distributed cognition and, thus, will account for the ecological validity of AI.
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 | 0.081 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".