Systematically Assessing the Security Risks of AI/ML-enabled Connected Healthcare Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of machine-learning-enabled systems in the healthcare domain is on the rise. While the use of ML in healthcare has several benefits, it also expands the threat surface of medical systems. We show that the use of ML in medical systems, particularly connected systems that involve interfacing the ML engine with multiple peripheral devices, has security risks that might cause life-threatening damage to a patient's health in case of adversarial interventions. These new risks arise due to security vulnerabilities in the peripheral devices and communication channels. We present a case study where we demonstrate an attack on an ML-enabled blood glucose monitoring system by introducing adversarial data points during inference. We show that an adversary can achieve this by exploiting a known vulnerability in the Bluetooth communication channel connecting the glucose meter with the ML-enabled app. We further show that state-of-the-art risk assessment techniques are not adequate for identifying and assessing these new risks. Our study highlights the need for novel risk analysis methods for analyzing the security of AI-enabled connected health devices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it