Toward a responsible future: recommendations for AI-enabled clinical decision support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare settings has the potential to benefit clinical decision-making. Addressing challenges such as ensuring trustworthiness, mitigating bias, and maintaining safety is paramount. The lack of established methodologies for pre- and post-deployment evaluation of AI tools regarding crucial attributes such as transparency, performance monitoring, and adverse event reporting makes this situation challenging. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to make practical suggestions for creating methods, rules, and guidelines to ensure that the development, testing, supervision, and use of AI in clinical decision support (CDS) systems are done well and safely for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2023, the Division of Clinical Informatics at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and the American Medical Informatics Association co-sponsored a working group on AI in healthcare. In August 2023, there were 4 webinars on AI topics and a 2-day workshop in September 2023 for consensus-building. The event included over 200 industry stakeholders, including clinicians, software developers, academics, ethicists, attorneys, government policy experts, scientists, and patients. The goal was to identify challenges associated with the trusted use of AI-enabled CDS in medical practice. Key issues were identified, and solutions were proposed through qualitative analysis and a 4-month iterative consensus process. RESULTS: Our work culminated in several key recommendations: (1) building safe and trustworthy systems; (2) developing validation, verification, and certification processes for AI-CDS systems; (3) providing a means of safety monitoring and reporting at the national level; and (4) ensuring that appropriate documentation and end-user training are provided. DISCUSSION: AI-enabled Clinical Decision Support (AI-CDS) systems promise to revolutionize healthcare decision-making, necessitating a comprehensive framework for their development, implementation, and regulation that emphasizes trustworthiness, transparency, and safety. This framework encompasses various aspects including model training, explainability, validation, certification, monitoring, and continuous evaluation, while also addressing challenges such as data privacy, fairness, and the need for regulatory oversight to ensure responsible integration of AI into clinical workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving responsible AI-CDS systems requires a collective effort from many healthcare stakeholders. This involves implementing robust safety, monitoring, and transparency measures while fostering innovation. Future steps include testing and piloting proposed trust mechanisms, such as safety reporting protocols, and establishing best practice guidelines.
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 | 0.082 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".