Ethical guidance for reporting and evaluating claims of AI outperforming human doctors

IF 12.4 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jojanneke Drogt, Megan Milota, Anne van den Brink, Karin Jongsma
{"title":"Ethical guidance for reporting and evaluating claims of AI outperforming human doctors","authors":"Jojanneke Drogt, Megan Milota, Anne van den Brink, Karin Jongsma","doi":"10.1038/s41746-024-01255-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Claims of AI outperforming medical practitioners are under scrutiny, as the evidence supporting many of these claims is not convincing or transparently reported. These claims often lack specificity, contextualization, and empirical grounding. In this comment, we offer constructive ethical guidance that can benefit authors, journal editors, and peer reviewers when reporting and evaluating findings in studies comparing AI to physician performance. The guidance provided here forms an essential addition to current reporting guidelines for healthcare studies using machine learning.","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01255-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01255-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Claims of AI outperforming medical practitioners are under scrutiny, as the evidence supporting many of these claims is not convincing or transparently reported. These claims often lack specificity, contextualization, and empirical grounding. In this comment, we offer constructive ethical guidance that can benefit authors, journal editors, and peer reviewers when reporting and evaluating findings in studies comparing AI to physician performance. The guidance provided here forms an essential addition to current reporting guidelines for healthcare studies using machine learning.
报告和评估人工智能优于人类医生的道德指南
人工智能优于医疗从业人员的说法受到了严格的审查,因为支持其中许多说法的证据并不令人信服,也没有透明的报告。这些说法往往缺乏具体性、背景和实证依据。在本评论中,我们将提供建设性的伦理指导,使作者、期刊编辑和同行评审人员在报告和评估人工智能与医生绩效比较研究结果时受益匪浅。本文提供的指导是对当前使用机器学习的医疗保健研究报告指南的重要补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信