What Does It Mean for a Medical AI System to Be Right?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11963v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 11:18:23 GMT
• Title: What Does It Mean for a Medical AI System to Be Right?
• Abstract summary: The paper argues that correctness in medical AI is not a singular property reducible to benchmark performance.<n>The paper develops this argument through four themes: the instability of ground truth labels, the opacity of overconfident AI, the inadequacy of standard clinical metrics, and the risk of automation bias in time-pressured clinical settings.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines what it means for a medical AI system to be right by grounding the question in a specific clinical context: the automatic classification of plasma cells in digitized bone marrow smears for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Drawing on philosophy of science and research ethics, the paper argues that correctness in medical AI is not a singular property reducible to benchmark performance, but a multi-dimensional concept involving the availability of expertly labeled medical datasets, the explainability and interpretability of model outputs, the clinical meaningfulness of evaluation metrics, and the distribution of accountability in human-AI workflows. As such, the paper develops this argument through four interrelated themes: the instability of ground truth labels, the opacity of overconfident AI, the inadequacy of standard clinical metrics, and the risk of automation bias in time-pressured clinical settings.

Related papers

• Generated Context versus Governed State: Functional Conditions for Accountable Longitudinal Clinical Reasoning [0.0]
  This paper argues that longitudinal clinical reasoning is a state-estimation problem under partial observability.<n>We show that an operational definition of accountability decomposes into four information requirements.<n>A six-level maturity framework separates what a system makes governable from what it can compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T18:18:31Z)
• Rethinking Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: Assumptions, Reality, and Reframing [29.25526289599026]
  We argue that a decade of intense research has not translated into proportionate bedside impact.<n>This Perspective identifies six interconnected dimensions of this misalignment.<n>We propose a vision of agentic, physician-aligned AI that extends, rather than replaces, clinical judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T19:55:49Z)
• Medical Model Synthesis Architectures: A Case Study [72.46211022258122]
  Current AI systems struggle with calibrated reasoning under uncertainty.<n>We propose a framework for AI systems that can make practically useful but formally transparent clinical predictions under uncertainty.<n>We show how an initial proof-of-concept of this framework can be used for differential diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T19:30:16Z)
• Medical Imaging AI Competitions Lack Fairness [50.895929923643905]
  We assess fairness along two complementary dimensions: whether challenge datasets are representative of real-world clinical diversity, and whether they are accessible and legally reusable in line with the FAIR principles.<n>Our findings show substantial biases in dataset composition, including geographic location, modality, and problem type-related biases, indicating that current benchmarks do not adequately reflect real-world clinical diversity.<n>These shortcomings expose foundational limitations in our benchmarking ecosystem and highlight a disconnect between leaderboard success and clinical relevance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T13:48:10Z)
• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• Uncertainty-aware abstention in medical diagnosis based on medical texts [87.88110503208016]
  This study addresses the critical issue of reliability for AI-assisted medical diagnosis.<n>We focus on the selection prediction approach that allows the diagnosis system to abstain from providing the decision if it is not confident in the diagnosis.<n>We introduce HUQ-2, a new state-of-the-art method for enhancing reliability in selective prediction tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T10:15:21Z)
• A survey of recent methods for addressing AI fairness and bias in biomedicine [48.46929081146017]
  Artificial intelligence systems may perpetuate social inequities or demonstrate biases, such as those based on race or gender. We surveyed recent publications on different debiasing methods in the fields of biomedical natural language processing (NLP) or computer vision (CV) We performed a literature search on PubMed, ACM digital library, and IEEE Xplore of relevant articles published between January 2018 and December 2023 using multiple combinations of keywords. We reviewed other potential methods from the general domain that could be applied to biomedicine to address bias and improve fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T06:38:46Z)
• Detecting algorithmic bias in medical-AI models using trees [7.939586935057782]
  This paper presents an innovative framework for detecting areas of algorithmic bias in medical-AI decision support systems. Our approach efficiently identifies potential biases in medical-AI models, specifically in the context of sepsis prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-05T18:47:34Z)
• Informing clinical assessment by contextualizing post-hoc explanations of risk prediction models in type-2 diabetes [50.8044927215346]
  We consider a comorbidity risk prediction scenario and focus on contexts regarding the patients clinical state. We employ several state-of-the-art LLMs to present contexts around risk prediction model inferences and evaluate their acceptability. Our paper is one of the first end-to-end analyses identifying the feasibility and benefits of contextual explanations in a real-world clinical use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T18:07:11Z)
• Evaluating Explainable AI on a Multi-Modal Medical Imaging Task: Can Existing Algorithms Fulfill Clinical Requirements? [42.75635888823057]
  Heatmap is a form of explanation that highlights important features for AI models' prediction. It is unknown how well heatmaps perform on explaining decisions on multi-modal medical images. We propose the modality-specific feature importance (MSFI) metric to tackle this clinically important but technically ignored problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-12T17:18:16Z)
• The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: a comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies [1.2762298148425795]
  Lack of transparency is identified as one of the main barriers to implementation of AI systems in health care. We review the recent literature to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners on the design of explainable AI systems. We conclude that explainable modelling can contribute to trustworthy AI, but the benefits of explainability still need to be proven in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-31T09:08:27Z)

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.