Should Physicians Take the Rap? Normative Analysis of Clinician Perspectives on Responsible Use of 'Black Box' AI Tools.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Ben H Lang, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jared N Smith, Meghan Hurley, Rita Dexter, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
{"title":"Should Physicians Take the Rap? Normative Analysis of Clinician Perspectives on Responsible Use of 'Black Box' AI Tools.","authors":"Ben H Lang, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Jared N Smith, Meghan Hurley, Rita Dexter, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing interest in deploying artificial intelligence tools in clinical contexts has raised several ethical questions of both normative and empirical interest. One such question in the literature is whether \"responsibility gaps\" (r-gaps) are created when clinicians utilize or rely on such tools for providing care, and if so, what to do about them. These gaps are particularly likely to arise when using opaque, \"black box\" AI tools. Compared to normative and legal analysis of AI-generated responsibility gaps in health care, little is known, empirically, about health care providers views on this issue. The present study examines clinician perspectives on this issue in the context of black box AI decisional support systems (BBAI-DSS) in advanced heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians (14 cardiologists and 6 LVAD nurse coordinators). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed for salient themes. All study procedures were approved by local IRB.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that <i>all</i> clinicians voiced that, if someone were responsible for the use and outcomes of black box AI, it would be physicians. We compare clinician perspectives on the existence of r-gaps and their impact on responsibility for errors or adverse outcomes when BBAI-DSS tools are used against a taxonomy from the literature, finding some clinicians acknowledging an r-gap and others denying it or its relevance in medical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians varied in their view about the existence of r-gaps but were united in their ascriptions of physician responsibility for the use of BBAI-DSS in clinical care. It was unclear at times whether these were descriptive or normative judgments (i.e., is it merely inevitable physicians will be responsible, or is it morally appropriate that they be held responsible?) or both. We discuss the likely normative inadequacy of such a conception of physician responsibility for BBAI tool use.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Increasing interest in deploying artificial intelligence tools in clinical contexts has raised several ethical questions of both normative and empirical interest. One such question in the literature is whether "responsibility gaps" (r-gaps) are created when clinicians utilize or rely on such tools for providing care, and if so, what to do about them. These gaps are particularly likely to arise when using opaque, "black box" AI tools. Compared to normative and legal analysis of AI-generated responsibility gaps in health care, little is known, empirically, about health care providers views on this issue. The present study examines clinician perspectives on this issue in the context of black box AI decisional support systems (BBAI-DSS) in advanced heart failure.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians (14 cardiologists and 6 LVAD nurse coordinators). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed for salient themes. All study procedures were approved by local IRB.

Results: We found that all clinicians voiced that, if someone were responsible for the use and outcomes of black box AI, it would be physicians. We compare clinician perspectives on the existence of r-gaps and their impact on responsibility for errors or adverse outcomes when BBAI-DSS tools are used against a taxonomy from the literature, finding some clinicians acknowledging an r-gap and others denying it or its relevance in medical decision-making.

Conclusion: Clinicians varied in their view about the existence of r-gaps but were united in their ascriptions of physician responsibility for the use of BBAI-DSS in clinical care. It was unclear at times whether these were descriptive or normative judgments (i.e., is it merely inevitable physicians will be responsible, or is it morally appropriate that they be held responsible?) or both. We discuss the likely normative inadequacy of such a conception of physician responsibility for BBAI tool use.

医生应该承担责任吗?临床医生对负责任地使用“黑匣子”人工智能工具的观点的规范分析。
背景:越来越多的人对在临床环境中部署人工智能工具感兴趣,这引发了一些规范和经验上的伦理问题。文献中的一个这样的问题是,当临床医生使用或依赖这些工具来提供护理时,是否会产生“责任差距”(r-gap),如果是这样,该怎么办?当使用不透明的“黑盒”人工智能工具时,这些差距尤其可能出现。与对卫生保健中人工智能产生的责任差距进行的规范和法律分析相比,从经验上看,人们对卫生保健提供者对这一问题的看法知之甚少。本研究在黑盒人工智能决策支持系统(BBAI-DSS)治疗晚期心力衰竭的背景下,探讨了临床医生对这一问题的看法。方法:对20名临床医生(14名心脏科医生和6名LVAD护士协调员)进行半结构化访谈。采访被转录、编码,并对突出的主题进行主题分析。所有研究程序均经当地审查委员会批准。结果:我们发现,所有临床医生都表示,如果有人对黑盒人工智能的使用和结果负责,那就是医生。当使用BBAI-DSS工具对文献中的分类进行分析时,我们比较了临床医生对r-gap的存在及其对错误或不良后果责任的影响的观点,发现一些临床医生承认r-gap,而另一些临床医生否认r-gap或其与医疗决策的相关性。结论:临床医生对r-gap存在的看法各不相同,但在医生在临床护理中使用BBAI-DSS的责任归属上是一致的。有时不清楚这些是描述性的还是规范性的判断(也就是说,医生是否不可避免地要负责,或者他们是否在道德上应该负责?)或两者兼而有之。我们讨论了这种医生对bbi工具使用责任的概念可能存在的规范性不足。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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