Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision‐making.
In this article I consider two pertinent questions that practitioners must consider when they deploy an algorithmic system as support in clinical shared decision‐making. The first question concerns how to interpret and assess the significance of different performance measures for clinical decision‐m...
| Publicado en: | Bioethics Vol. 36; no. 2; pp. 178 - 187 |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Feb2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=154715840&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 154715840 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02699702 6PJ jtl: Bioethics issn: 02699702 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Feb2022 vid: 36 iid: 2 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 154715840 10.1111/bioe.12930 ppf: 178 ppct: 9 formats: tig: atl: Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision‐making. aug: su: Artificial intelligence Decision making Communication Autonomy (Psychology) Professionalism Bioethics Decision making in clinical medicine Algorithms sug: subj: Artificial intelligence Decision making Communication Autonomy (Psychology) Professionalism Bioethics Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) Decision making in clinical medicine Algorithms keyword: AI algorithm decision‐making ethics fairness AI algorithm decision‐making ethics fairness ab: In this article I consider two pertinent questions that practitioners must consider when they deploy an algorithmic system as support in clinical shared decision‐making. The first question concerns how to interpret and assess the significance of different performance measures for clinical decision‐making. The second question concerns the professional obligations that practitioners have to communicate information about the quality of an algorithm's output to patients in light of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. In the article I review the four standard performance measures used to evaluate and validate algorithms, outline their role in the discussion of algorithmic fairness, and discuss the professional responsibilities that practitioners face when communicating information about these measures to patients. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|