arXiv AI

RISED: A Pre-Deployment Evaluation Framework for High-Stakes AI Decision-Support Systems, with Application to Healthcare

arXiv:2605. 12895v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Clinical decision-support systems are expert systems whose recommendations clinicians act on directly, yet they are usually cleared on one aggregate accuracy number from a held-out test set.

arXiv AI
Sep 3

The Ceiling Is in the Channel: Auditing Learner Gaps and Measurement Frontiers in Clinical Prediction

The paper introduces a framework that distinguishes two causes of saturation in clinical prediction: a learner gap, where the model fails to use available information, and a measurement‑channel ceiling, where the recorded variables limit performance. It provides theoretical characterizations, finite‑sample diagnostics, and empirical audits across three large cohorts, showing that well‑tuned models approach the frontier while deficient learners leave large gaps. A PRISMA‑guided synthesis across 104 tasks reveals consistent channel‑level patterns, suggesting that improving the learner or the measurement channel can audit and potentially lift performance.

By Sayeed Shafayet Chowdhury, Nusrat Jahan, Snehasis Mukhopadhyay, Shiaofen Fang, Vijay R. Ramakrishnan
arXiv AI
Sep 11

Safe to Stop? Risk-Constrained Stopping for Sequential Clinical Diagnosis Agents

The paper introduces Cros, a risk‑constrained stopping layer for sequential clinical diagnosis agents that determines when to stop testing and make a diagnosis. Cros combines state‑wise error ranking, policy design on disjoint development splits, and exact tests of selective diagnostic error to provide finite‑sample guarantees. On a MIMIC‑derived abdominal‑pain benchmark, Cros achieves higher state‑error AUROC and lower selective error rates compared to baseline stopping methods, though its performance varies across development resplits.

By Yuexin Wu, Vasile Rus
arXiv AI
Sep 2

AI Morbidity and Mortality: A Framework for Clinical AI Failure Review

AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M) is a structured, blameless framework designed to review clinical AI failures. It combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation, investigator reconstruction, tool‑in‑loop attribution, and corrective‑action tracking, classifying each event across four linked dimensions: Trigger, Mechanism, Clinical Pathway, and Corrective Action. The authors demonstrate the framework with five outpatient medication and clinical decision‑support cases, achieving full agreement among reviewers on all classification axes.

By Paulius Mui, Dean F. Sittig, Steve Labkoff, Sanjay Basu
arXiv AI
Aug 20

FairGlucose: A CGM Fairness Benchmark Reveals Subgroup Disparities Hidden in Population-Level Validation

FairGlucose is a 300‑patient CGM cohort balanced across 12 demographic strata, providing 132,480 forecasting samples and 3,945 behavioral events. Benchmarking 33 models on 2‑hour glucose forecasting revealed that population‑level validation masks significant subgroup disparities, with error ratios ranging from 0.8 to 1.4 and T1D patients experiencing 6 mg/dL higher error than T2D. The study shows that these gaps persist across all models, align with clinically hard cases, and vary with input‑length sensitivity, underscoring the need for subgroup‑disaggregated reporting in digital health AI.

By Junjie Luo, Xuzhe Zhi, Rui Han, Abhimanyu Kumbara, Anand K. Iyer, Mansur E. Shomali, Ritu Agarwal, Guodong Gordon Gao