AI Epidemiology: achieving explainable AI through expert oversight patterns

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.15783v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 11:29:05 GMT
• Title: AI Epidemiology: achieving explainable AI through expert oversight patterns
• Authors: Kit Tempest-Walters,
• Abstract summary: AI Epidemiology is a framework for governing and explaining advanced AI systems.<n>It mirrors the way in which epidemiologists enable public health interventions through statistical evidence.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI Epidemiology is a framework for governing and explaining advanced AI systems by applying population-level surveillance methods to AI outputs. The approach mirrors the way in which epidemiologists enable public health interventions through statistical evidence before molecular mechanisms are understood. This bypasses the problem of model complexity which plagues current interpretability methods (such as SHAP and mechanistic interpretability) at the scale of deployed models. AI Epidemiology achieves this population-level surveillance by standardising capture of AI-expert interactions into structured assessment fields: risk level, alignment score, and accuracy score. These function as exposure variables which predict output failure through statistical associations, much like cholesterol and blood pressure act as exposure variables predicting cardiac events. Output-failure associations are subsequently validated against expert overrides and real-world outcomes. The framework places zero burden on experts and provides automatic audit trails by passively tracking expert convergence and divergence with AI recommendations. Since it analyses outputs rather than internal model computations, it also provides governance continuity when institutions update models and switch vendors. Finally, by providing reliability scores and semantic assessments (e.g. 'this recommendation resembles 500 cases overridden by experts due to guideline violations'), it enables experts and institutions to detect unreliable AI outputs before they cause harm. This democratises AI oversight by enabling domain experts to govern AI systems without requiring machine learning expertise.

Related papers

• Toward Quantitative Modeling of Cybersecurity Risks Due to AI Misuse [50.87630846876635]
  We develop nine detailed cyber risk models.<n>Each model decomposes attacks into steps using the MITRE ATT&CK framework.<n>Individual estimates are aggregated through Monte Carlo simulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T17:54:17Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Echoes of AI Harms: A Human-LLM Synergistic Framework for Bias-Driven Harm Anticipation [1.5892420496333068]
  ECHO is a novel framework for proactive AI harm anticipation.<n>It enables early-stage detection of bias-to-harm pathways.<n>We validate ECHO in two high-stakes domains (disease diagnosis and hiring)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:25:21Z)
• Why can't Epidemiology be automated (yet)? [0.0]
  We map the landscape of epidemiological tasks using existing datasets.<n>We identify where existing AI tools offer efficiency gains.<n>We demonstrate that recently developed agentic systems can now design and execute epidemiological analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T13:41:52Z)
• Rethinking Data Protection in the (Generative) Artificial Intelligence Era [138.07763415496288]
  We propose a four-level taxonomy that captures the diverse protection needs arising in modern (generative) AI models and systems.<n>Our framework offers a structured understanding of the trade-offs between data utility and control, spanning the entire AI pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T02:45:51Z)
• Keeping Medical AI Healthy: A Review of Detection and Correction Methods for System Degradation [6.781778751487079]
  This review presents a forward-looking perspective on monitoring and maintaining the "health" of AI systems in healthcare.<n>We highlight the urgent need for continuous performance monitoring, early degradation detection, and effective self-correction mechanisms.<n>This work aims to guide the development of reliable, robust medical AI systems capable of sustaining safe, long-term deployment in dynamic clinical settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T19:22:07Z)
• Automated Real-time Assessment of Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection AI Using an Ensembled Monitoring Model (EMM) [1.8767322781894276]
  We introduce Ensembled Monitoring Model (EMM), a framework inspired by clinical consensus practices using multiple expert reviews.<n>EMM operates independently without requiring access to internal AI components or intermediate outputs.<n>We demonstrate that EMM successfully categorizes confidence in the AI-generated prediction, suggesting different actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T22:50:42Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Artificial Intelligence-Driven Clinical Decision Support Systems [5.010570270212569]
  The chapter emphasizes that creating trustworthy AI systems in healthcare requires careful consideration of fairness, explainability, and privacy.<n>The challenge of ensuring equitable healthcare delivery through AI is stressed, discussing methods to identify and mitigate bias in clinical predictive models.<n>The discussion advances in an analysis of privacy vulnerabilities in medical AI systems, from data leakage in deep learning models to sophisticated attacks against model explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-16T16:17:39Z)
• Progressing from Anomaly Detection to Automated Log Labeling and Pioneering Root Cause Analysis [53.24804865821692]
  This study introduces a taxonomy for log anomalies and explores automated data labeling to mitigate labeling challenges. The study envisions a future where root cause analysis follows anomaly detection, unraveling the underlying triggers of anomalies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T15:04:20Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.