Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Intensive Care: From Algorithmic Fluency to Clinical Accountability.

IF 2 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Tanmoy Ghatak
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Intensive Care: From Algorithmic Fluency to Clinical Accountability.","authors":"Tanmoy Ghatak","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is increasingly being used in intensive care environments to assist with documentation, literature synthesis, and clinical information retrieval. While these tools offer efficiency and cognitive support in high-pressure settings such as the intensive care unit (ICU), they also introduce risks related to hallucination, automation bias, and a lack of explainability.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the emerging challenges associated with AI use in critical care-especially hallucination and algorithmic overconfidence-and to highlight the need for structured AI literacy and governance frameworks for intensivists.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Recent analyses show that AI hallucination-the generation of fabricated or distorted information-is an intrinsic feature of probabilistic language models rather than a rare technical error. In critical care contexts, this may manifest as fabricated references, distorted clinical reasoning, or overconfident recommendations. Additional concerns include automation bias, where clinicians may inadvertently rely on algorithmic outputs, and opacity in AI decision-making processes. Emerging evidence demonstrates that while AI tools may enhance efficiency in tasks such as documentation and knowledge summarization, they remain unreliable for unsupervised clinical reasoning.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The integration of AI into intensive care practice should be guided by structured AI literacy, institutional governance frameworks, and continued human oversight. Artificial intelligence can serve as a supportive cognitive tool, but responsibility for clinical judgment, patient safety, and ethical decision-making must remain firmly with the clinician.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Ghatak T. Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Intensive Care: From Algorithmic Fluency to Clinical Accountability. Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(4):272-274.</p>","PeriodicalId":47664,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"30 4","pages":"272-274"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13177757/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is increasingly being used in intensive care environments to assist with documentation, literature synthesis, and clinical information retrieval. While these tools offer efficiency and cognitive support in high-pressure settings such as the intensive care unit (ICU), they also introduce risks related to hallucination, automation bias, and a lack of explainability.

Aim: To examine the emerging challenges associated with AI use in critical care-especially hallucination and algorithmic overconfidence-and to highlight the need for structured AI literacy and governance frameworks for intensivists.

Findings: Recent analyses show that AI hallucination-the generation of fabricated or distorted information-is an intrinsic feature of probabilistic language models rather than a rare technical error. In critical care contexts, this may manifest as fabricated references, distorted clinical reasoning, or overconfident recommendations. Additional concerns include automation bias, where clinicians may inadvertently rely on algorithmic outputs, and opacity in AI decision-making processes. Emerging evidence demonstrates that while AI tools may enhance efficiency in tasks such as documentation and knowledge summarization, they remain unreliable for unsupervised clinical reasoning.

Conclusion: The integration of AI into intensive care practice should be guided by structured AI literacy, institutional governance frameworks, and continued human oversight. Artificial intelligence can serve as a supportive cognitive tool, but responsibility for clinical judgment, patient safety, and ethical decision-making must remain firmly with the clinician.

How to cite this article: Ghatak T. Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Intensive Care: From Algorithmic Fluency to Clinical Accountability. Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(4):272-274.

重症监护中的人工智能素养:从算法流畅性到临床责任。
背景:人工智能(AI),特别是大型语言模型(llm),越来越多地被用于重症监护环境,以协助文档编制、文献合成和临床信息检索。虽然这些工具在重症监护病房(ICU)等高压环境中提供了效率和认知支持,但它们也引入了与幻觉、自动化偏见和缺乏可解释性相关的风险。目的:研究与在重症监护中使用人工智能相关的新挑战,特别是幻觉和算法过度自信,并强调对重症监护人员结构化人工智能素养和治理框架的需求。研究发现:最近的分析表明,人工智能幻觉——产生虚假或扭曲的信息——是概率语言模型的内在特征,而不是罕见的技术错误。在重症监护环境中,这可能表现为捏造的参考文献、扭曲的临床推理或过于自信的建议。其他问题包括自动化偏见,临床医生可能无意中依赖算法输出,以及人工智能决策过程的不透明性。新出现的证据表明,尽管人工智能工具可以提高文档和知识总结等任务的效率,但它们对于无监督的临床推理仍然不可靠。结论:将人工智能融入重症监护实践应以结构化的人工智能素养、机构治理框架和持续的人类监督为指导。人工智能可以作为一种支持性的认知工具,但临床判断、患者安全和伦理决策的责任必须牢牢地掌握在临床医生手中。Ghatak T.重症监护中的人工智能素养:从算法流畅性到临床责任。中华危重医学杂志,2011;30(4):272-274。
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
3.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine (ISSN 0972-5229) is specialty periodical published under the auspices of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. Journal encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the fields of critical and emergency medicine.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书