MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388720500 · doi:10.2196/preprints.54559

Responsible artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems requires good science: Lessons learned from an international roundtable discussion (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4388720500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaylen J. Pfisterer, Shumit Saha, Yan Fossat, Maura R. Grossman, Alexander Wong, Azadeh Yadollahi, Bo Wang, Animesh Garg, Larisa Dinu, Dimitra Kale, Corinna Leppin, Melissa Oldham, Madison Taylor, Ian Connell, Claire Garnett, Quỳnh Phạm

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Health careInterpretabilityMultidisciplinary approachPosition paperComputer scienceScale (ratio)AuditKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNSTRUCTURED In healthcare, where increasing efficiency is essential to the demand of scale, there is immense opportunity to incorporate advances in artificial intelligence (AI). However, particularly in healthcare, these technologies must be designed to be both effective and ethical. Our objective in a multidisciplinary international roundtable discussion (Canada, United States, United Kingdom), was to identify concepts, perspectives, and considerations for AI systems in healthcare settings that are designed, developed, and deployed with good intention to empower patients and healthcare providers in a safe, trustworthy, and ethical way. We refer to this notion as responsible AI (RAI). First, we discuss the role and opportunity of AI to support collaborative healthcare (clinicians and patients working together) and increase specialist capacity. Second, we outline risks and ramifications of poorly implemented AI including bias, implications of predictors to support diagnosis, and privacy and security considerations. Third, we discuss how these risks can be mitigated through conducting “good science” by addressing biases such as representative data, probing annotation bias, and the role of the biostatistician. We also outline the need to evaluate fit for purpose through transdisciplinary collaboration to address: explainability, fairness, interpretability, transparency, as well as the role of standards, auditing, and regulatory considerations. Finally, we detail four criteria outlining determinants, considerations and rationale for developing RAI. These determinants and considerations are meant to position new AI-powered healthcare technologies primed for responsible design supporting acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and adoption. Future directions should expand on additional factors and monitor responsible AI implementation success to validate these criteria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.214
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2140.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.022
Scholarly communication0.0370.029
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0360.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.533
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.045 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→