Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00044v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:36:20 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care
• Abstract summary: I argue that the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation.<n>I propose a dialectical standard of care that treats the integrated AI-physician dyad as the singular responsible diagnostic entity.
• Score: 5.584060970507507
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The integration of artificial intelligence into clinical medicine creates a fundamental tension between algorithmic probabilistic reasoning and the experiential intuition of expert physicians; applying Lawrence Lessig's \enquote{Code is Law} framework, I argue that the architecture of clinical AI systems already functions as de facto medical regulation, reshaping liability and the standard of care. Reframing AI \enquote{hallucination} as structurally analogous to well-documented human cognitive failures such as confirmation bias and premature diagnostic closure, I show that both failure modes demand a unified governance response. I therefore propose a dialectical standard of care that treats the integrated AI-physician dyad as the singular responsible diagnostic entity, mandating the synthesis of algorithmic precision with human interpretive authority within robust data governance and patient privacy frameworks.

Related papers

• Three Generations of Healthcare IT: From the Digital Record to the Computable Care Process [47.027290803102666]
  We describe a computational layer whose object is patient-specific clinical intent.<n>We formalize the Actionable Clinical Record as the atomic object of the third layer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T16:44:28Z)
• 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)
• From Black-Box Confidence to Measurable Trust in Clinical AI: A Framework for Evidence, Supervision, and Staged Autonomy [0.0]
  Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression.<n>This article proposes a framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T13:40:14Z)
• Bridging AI and Clinical Reasoning: Abductive Explanations for Alignment on Critical Symptoms [5.220940151628734]
  Key challenge is that AI reasoning diverges from structured clinical frameworks.<n>We leverage formal abductive explanations, which offer consistent, guaranteed reasoning.<n>This enables a clear understanding of AI decision-making and allows alignment with clinical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T04:27:59Z)
• Responsible Evaluation of AI for Mental Health [72.85175110624736]
  Current approaches to evaluating AI tools in mental health care are fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience.<n>This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T12:55:10Z)
• Benchmarking Egocentric Clinical Intent Understanding Capability for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [48.95516224614331]
  We introduce MedGaze-Bench, the first benchmark leveraging clinician gaze as a Cognitive Cursor to assess intent understanding across surgery, emergency simulation, and diagnostic interpretation.<n>Our benchmark addresses three fundamental challenges: visual homogeneity of anatomical structures, strict temporal-causal dependencies in clinical, and implicit adherence to safety protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T02:20:40Z)
• Toward an AI Reasoning-Enabled System for Patient-Clinical Trial Matching [0.0]
  We present a secure, scalable proof-of-concept system for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-augmented patient-trial matching.<n>The system generates structured eligibility assessments with interpretable reasoning chains that support human-in-the-loop review.<n>The system aims to reduce coordinator burden, intelligently broaden the set of trials considered for each patient and guarantee comprehensive auditability of all AI-generated outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T20:35:51Z)
• Before the Clinic: Transparent and Operable Design Principles for Healthcare AI [42.994619952353396]
  We propose two foundational design principles to operationalize pre-clinical technical requirements for healthcare AI.<n>We ground these principles in established XAI frameworks, map them to documented clinician needs, and demonstrate their alignment with emerging governance requirements.<n>This pre-clinical playbook provides actionable guidance for development teams, accelerates the path to clinical evaluation, and establishes a shared vocabulary bridging AI researchers, healthcare practitioners, and regulatory stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T04:05:09Z)
• The challenge of uncertainty quantification of large language models in medicine [0.0]
  This study investigates uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs) for medical applications.<n>Our research frames uncertainty not as a barrier but as an essential part of knowledge that invites a dynamic and reflective approach to AI design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T17:24:11Z)
• 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)
• MedCoT: Medical Chain of Thought via Hierarchical Expert [48.91966620985221]
  This paper presents MedCoT, a novel hierarchical expert verification reasoning chain method.<n>It is designed to enhance interpretability and accuracy in biomedical imaging inquiries.<n> Experimental evaluations on four standard Med-VQA datasets demonstrate that MedCoT surpasses existing state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T11:14:02Z)
• The Medkit-Learn(ing) Environment: Medical Decision Modelling through Simulation [81.72197368690031]
  We present a new benchmarking suite designed specifically for medical sequential decision making. The Medkit-Learn(ing) Environment is a publicly available Python package providing simple and easy access to high-fidelity synthetic medical data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-08T10:38:09Z)

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.