Algorithm Design and Physician Liability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13618v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 21:08:34 GMT
• Title: Algorithm Design and Physician Liability
• Abstract summary: A U.S. liability rule holds healthcare providers responsible when their reliance on disparate algorithms contributes to erroneous clinical decisions.<n>We examine how such liability considerations reshape an AI firm's algorithm design decisions.<n>We find the liability rule can induce disparate use of AI.
• Score: 0.22940141855172036
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A single clinical algorithm can deliver unequal accuracy across patient groups, and concern about such disparity has grown as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads through clinical decision-making. In response, a liability rule introduced in the United States holds healthcare providers responsible when their reliance on disparate algorithms contributes to erroneous clinical decisions. We examine how such liability considerations reshape (i) an AI firm's algorithm design decisions that drive group-specific accuracy and (ii) a physician's decisions to use AI in healthcare delivery. The AI firm designs an algorithm for two patient groups, and improving accuracy for the disadvantaged group is more costly. The physician (who remains the accountable decision-maker) then decides whether to consult AI, weighing the reduction in clinical uncertainty against expected liability exposure when AI errors disproportionately affect the disadvantaged group. We find the liability rule can induce disparate use of AI: the physician may reduce AI use overall and, over an intermediate range of liability, rely on AI less for disadvantaged patients. The effect is non-monotone. As liability increases, the physician's use of AI for disadvantaged patients first declines, then rises as the firm reallocates investment toward reducing disparity or switches to an equal-accuracy design. Mandating equal algorithmic accuracy across patient groups can then inadvertently harm both groups, because a uniform accuracy requirement distorts the firm's investment incentives and the physician's equilibrium AI-use decisions.

Related papers

• Optimal Liability Design for Medical AI [4.238757198284236]
  This paper develops a principal-agent model in which a social planner designs medical liability to regulate a physician with private quality information.<n>We show that the optimal mechanism under asymmetric information is surprisingly simple: a uniform, one-size-fits-all liability level for all physician types.<n>We find that information asymmetry is a double-edged sword in the presence of AI, and greater transparency does not benefit all stakeholders equally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T04:33:10Z)
• Explainable AI as a Double-Edged Sword in Dermatology: The Impact on Clinicians versus The Public [46.86429592892395]
  explainable AI (XAI) addresses this by providing AI decision-making insight.<n>We present results from two large-scale experiments combining a fairness-based diagnosis AI model and different XAI explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T00:06:06Z)
• Design and Validation of a Responsible Artificial Intelligence-based System for the Referral of Diabetic Retinopathy Patients [65.57160385098935]
  Early detection of Diabetic Retinopathy can reduce the risk of vision loss by up to 95%.<n>We developed RAIS-DR, a Responsible AI System for DR screening that incorporates ethical principles across the AI lifecycle.<n>We evaluated RAIS-DR against the FDA-approved EyeArt system on a local dataset of 1,046 patients, unseen by both systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T21:54:11Z)
• Explainable AI for Collaborative Assessment of 2D/3D Registration Quality [50.65650507103078]
  We propose the first artificial intelligence framework trained specifically for 2D/3D registration quality verification.<n>Our explainable AI (XAI) approach aims to enhance informed decision-making for human operators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T15:28:57Z)
• Towards Next-Generation Medical Agent: How o1 is Reshaping Decision-Making in Medical Scenarios [46.729092855387165]
  We study the choice of the backbone LLM for medical AI agents, which is the foundation for the agent's overall reasoning and action generation.<n>Our findings demonstrate o1's ability to enhance diagnostic accuracy and consistency, paving the way for smarter, more responsive AI tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T18:19:53Z)
• Explainable AI Enhances Glaucoma Referrals, Yet the Human-AI Team Still Falls Short of the AI Alone [6.740852152639975]
  We investigate how various AI explanations help providers distinguish between patients needing immediate or non-urgent specialist referrals. We built explainable AI algorithms to predict glaucoma surgery needs from routine eyecare data as a proxy for identifying high-risk patients. We incorporated intrinsic and post-hoc explainability and conducted an online study with optometrists to assess human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T03:01:20Z)
• Does More Advice Help? The Effects of Second Opinions in AI-Assisted Decision Making [45.20615051119694]
  We explore whether and how the provision of second opinions may affect decision-makers' behavior and performance in AI-assisted decision-making. We find that if both the AI model's decision recommendation and a second opinion are always presented together, decision-makers reduce their over-reliance on AI. If decision-makers have the control to decide when to solicit a peer's second opinion, we find that their active solicitations of second opinions have the potential to mitigate over-reliance on AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T12:19:01Z)
• A Conceptual Algorithm for Applying Ethical Principles of AI to Medical Practice [5.005928809654619]
  AI-powered tools are increasingly matching or exceeding specialist-level performance across multiple domains.<n>These systems promise to reduce disparities in care delivery across demographic, racial, and socioeconomic boundaries.<n>The democratization of such AI tools can reduce the cost of care, optimize resource allocation, and improve the quality of care.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-23T04:14:18Z)
• AI Reliance and Decision Quality: Fundamentals, Interdependence, and the Effects of Interventions [6.356355538824237]
  We argue that reliance and decision quality are often inappropriately conflated in the current literature on AI-assisted decision-making.<n>Our research highlights the importance of distinguishing between reliance behavior and decision quality in AI-assisted decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-18T08:08:05Z)
• 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)
• Understanding how the use of AI decision support tools affect critical thinking and over-reliance on technology by drug dispensers in Tanzania [0.0]
  Drug shop dispensers were on AI-powered technologies when determining a differential diagnosis for a presented clinical case vignette. We found that dispensers relied on the decision made by the AI 25 percent of the time, even when the AI provided no explanation for its decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T05:59:06Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

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.