arXiv AI By Aizierjiang Aiersilan

Algorithmic Authority and the Clinical Standard of Care

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

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.

By Shujie Luan, Shubhranshu Singh, Tinglong Dai
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.

By Rui Mao, Tingliang Huang, Houcai Shen
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.

By Eileanor LaRocco, Sarah Tan, Adarsh Subbaswamy, Anne Andrews, Andrew Taylor, Cree Gaskin, Chirag Agarwal
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 18

ETHOS: Towards a Modular Ethics Framework for Clinical Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv:2608. 15424v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid adoption of large language models has enabled the development of clinical multi-agent systems (MAS) capable of integrating multimodal patient data and supporting increasingly complex clinical decision-making.

By Rakesh Sharma, Sydney Pugh, Cameron Beeche, Pankhuri Singhal, Rachel Wu, Margaret Eby, Jeffrey Duda, James Gee, Kyra O'Brien, Hersh Sagreiya, Marina Serper, Victoria Gershuni, Angela Bradbury, Anurag Verma, Eric Eaton, Kevin B. Johnson, Walter Witschey