arXiv AI
AI Model Design and Physician Liability
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 17
Algorithm Design and Physician Liability
arXiv:2608. 13618v1 Announce Type: new 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.
arXiv AI
Aug 5
Optimal Liability Design for Medical AI
arXiv:2608. 03114v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, yet its liability implications remain complex, particularly when physicians differ in diagnostic skills and their quality is unobservable.
arXiv AI
Aug 25
The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
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.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care
arXiv:2606. 00044v1 Announce Type: cross 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.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 8
Unequal Uncertainty: Rethinking Algorithmic Interventions for Mitigating Discrimination from AI
arXiv:2508. 07872v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI) predictions raises pressing legal and ethical questions for AI-assisted decision-making.
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.