Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Trust and Medical AI: The challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them (2008.07734v1)

Published 18 Aug 2020 in cs.AI and cs.CY

Abstract: AI is increasingly of tremendous interest in the medical field. However, failures of medical AI could have serious consequences for both clinical outcomes and the patient experience. These consequences could erode public trust in AI, which could in turn undermine trust in our healthcare institutions. This article makes two contributions. First, it describes the major conceptual, technical, and humanistic challenges in medical AI. Second, it proposes a solution that hinges on the education and accreditation of new expert groups who specialize in the development, verification, and operation of medical AI technologies. These groups will be required to maintain trust in our healthcare institutions.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Manisha Senadeera (4 papers)
  2. Stephan Jacobs (3 papers)
  3. Simon Coghlan (7 papers)
  4. Vuong Le (22 papers)
  5. Thomas P. Quinn (8 papers)
Citations (100)

Summary

Trust and Medical AI: Challenges and Expertise

In the paper "Trust and Medical AI: The challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them," the authors discuss critical challenges and propose strategic solutions for incorporating AI into healthcare systems while maintaining public trust. As AI continues to add value to medical practice, it simultaneously presents risks that could erode trust in healthcare institutions. The paper identifies three central challenges—conceptual, technical, and humanistic—and outlines how specialized expert groups can address these challenges.

The conceptual challenges involve identifying the problems AI should address within the healthcare sector and ensuring these implementations align with medical practices. While AI like machine learning offers potent data-driven capabilities, it lacks human intuitive reasoning. Therefore, formulating research questions and hypotheses should carefully consider the AI architecture and its training data to avoid oversight like overfitting and data leakage. The paper highlights the necessity of understanding the medical problem's nature and warns against potential biases embedded in training data, which can lead models to propagate existing errors or misconceptions.

Technical challenges arise from the complexity and evolving nature of AI, which the paper refers to as requiring expertise akin to "art" rather than purely algorithmic rules. The tuning of AI models, such as LSTMs for EEG signals, requires careful adjustment of hyperparameters, and there is no universal approach. This condition necessitates domain expertise to integrate prior knowledge and real-world examples effectively, especially in healthcare, where data can be erratic due to various factors like socio-economic disparities, which may introduce biases.

Humanistic challenges include ethical and social dimensions, emphasizing the need for patient-centered AI solutions that respect privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy. The opacity of AI models often raises concerns, especially when these models impact decision-making without transparent rationale. This lack of transparency could erode trust and autonomy, mainly if AI systems make paternalistic determinations that dismiss patient values and preferences. Furthermore, the risk of automation bias and potential over-reliance on AI by healthcare practitioners poses additional risks, affecting patient care quality if AI interventions are misaligned with patient-centered and ethically sound medical practice.

To tackle these multidimensional challenges, the paper advocates for the establishment of three expert groups: developers, validators, and operational staff.

  • The developers must comprise a diverse array of professionals, including AI specialists, healthcare practitioners, patient advocates, and ethicists, to ensure AI aligns sensitively with patient values and outcomes. Both short-term interdisciplinary research collaborations and long-term integrated training programs are proposed to prepare this group.
  • Validators are responsible for continuously auditing AI systems to ensure they meet rigorous standards comparable to evidence-based medicine. The paper suggests that existing validation methodologies like peer reviews and randomized clinical trials be employed while proposing the development of formal institutions for maintaining AI safety.
  • Finally, the operational staff—healthcare professionals engaged directly with patients and AI technologies—play a critical role in mediating between technology developers and patients. Their literacy in AI and involvement in AI safety workshops can help them manage the use of AI prudently and avoid over-reliance while respecting patient autonomy.

In conclusion, the paper underscores the importance of constructing a new labor force trained in digital medicine to advance the safe integration of AI into healthcare. It emphasizes the development of interdisciplinary academic and professional pathways to cultivate experts who can maintain the integrity of AI implementations in healthcare settings, ultimately preserving public trust as AI becomes increasingly embedded in medical practice.

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com