arXiv:2508. 07617v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI has the potential to augment human decision making.
arXiv:2603. 14158v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical workflows, yet evaluations rarely assess how clinician reasoning shapes model behavior during clinical interactions.
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2607. 13562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowing when to say "I don't know" is fundamental to human judgment, yet AI assistants offer a fluent answer to almost any question.
Knowing when to say "I don't know" is fundamental to human judgment, yet AI assistants offer a fluent answer to almost any question. In five experiments (N = 3,132; four preregistered, one direct replication), participants answered difficult questions and could always decline to respond.
The paper investigates how human interventions at specific fault points—moments when an AI agent’s reasoning is most vulnerable—affect the diagnostic accuracy of multi‑agent medical systems. Using the MedQA dataset, the authors found that correct interventions can boost baseline accuracy by up to 40%, whereas incorrect or bias‑related interventions can reduce performance by up to 6% and increase diagnostic drift and uncertainty. The study also highlights behavioral parallels between cognitive biases observed in simulated agent conversations and real‑world clinical practice, such as premature closure and susceptibility to misleading cues.
arXiv:2205. 04599v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for trustworthy AI in healthcare, yet many existing methods rely on technical explanations that are difficult for clinicians and patients to interpret.
arXiv:2602. 19502v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agentic AI systems are increasingly capable of autonomous data science workflows, yet clinical prediction tasks demand domain expertise that purely automated approaches struggle to provide.
arXiv:2608.29453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI becomes increasingly integrated into clinical practice, it is playing a growing role in medical decision making. Medicine, however, is a high s...
The paper discusses how autonomous AI systems are moving from advisory to agentic roles in medication prescribing, citing recent U.S. legislation and a Utah pilot program. It argues that three architectural features—calibrated per‑prediction confidence, clear differentiation between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, and inferential transparency—are essential for safe autonomous prescribing. A survey of 136 U.S. clinicians shows they require a confidence‑based escalation mechanism, prefer different handling of uncertainty types, and will only accept liability when transparency allows informed decision‑making.
The study re‑implements 12 AI algorithms for electronic health records within a unified framework and evaluates them on MIMIC‑IV and NWICU datasets. It compares expert‑authored clinically meaningful tasks with randomly generated tasks, finding that pairwise algorithm comparisons transfer well across task families and datasets, yet clinically meaningful tasks show stronger task‑method interactions. The results also reveal that newer algorithms do not consistently outperform older ones, with gradient‑boosted trees remaining highly competitive when combined with modern EHR representations.
arXiv:2608. 14598v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical AI has rapidly improved its ability to perform diagnostic and prognostic tasks that lead to treatment decisions.
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.