反思机器:支持人类对医疗决策支持系统的有效监督。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-10 DOI:10.1017/S0963180122000718
Pim Haselager, Hanna Schraffenberger, Serge Thill, Simon Fischer, Pablo Lanillos, Sebastiaan van de Groes, Miranda van Hooff
{"title":"反思机器:支持人类对医疗决策支持系统的有效监督。","authors":"Pim Haselager, Hanna Schraffenberger, Serge Thill, Simon Fischer, Pablo Lanillos, Sebastiaan van de Groes, Miranda van Hooff","doi":"10.1017/S0963180122000718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human decisions are increasingly supported by decision support systems (DSS). Humans are required to remain \"on the loop,\" by monitoring and approving/rejecting machine recommendations. However, use of DSS can lead to overreliance on machines, reducing human oversight. This paper proposes \"reflection machines\" (RM) to increase meaningful human control. An RM provides a medical expert not with suggestions for a decision, but with questions that stimulate reflection about decisions. It can refer to data points or suggest counterarguments that are less compatible with the planned decision. RMs think against the proposed decision in order to increase human resistance against automation complacency. Building on preliminary research, this paper will (1) make a case for deriving a set of design requirements for RMs from EU regulations, (2) suggest a way how RMs could support decision-making, (3) describe the possibility of how a prototype of an RM could apply to the medical domain of chronic low back pain, and (4) highlight the importance of exploring an RM's functionality and the experiences of users working with it.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"380-389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflection Machines: Supporting Effective Human Oversight Over Medical Decision Support Systems.\",\"authors\":\"Pim Haselager, Hanna Schraffenberger, Serge Thill, Simon Fischer, Pablo Lanillos, Sebastiaan van de Groes, Miranda van Hooff\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180122000718\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Human decisions are increasingly supported by decision support systems (DSS). Humans are required to remain \\\"on the loop,\\\" by monitoring and approving/rejecting machine recommendations. However, use of DSS can lead to overreliance on machines, reducing human oversight. This paper proposes \\\"reflection machines\\\" (RM) to increase meaningful human control. An RM provides a medical expert not with suggestions for a decision, but with questions that stimulate reflection about decisions. It can refer to data points or suggest counterarguments that are less compatible with the planned decision. RMs think against the proposed decision in order to increase human resistance against automation complacency. Building on preliminary research, this paper will (1) make a case for deriving a set of design requirements for RMs from EU regulations, (2) suggest a way how RMs could support decision-making, (3) describe the possibility of how a prototype of an RM could apply to the medical domain of chronic low back pain, and (4) highlight the importance of exploring an RM's functionality and the experiences of users working with it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"380-389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180122000718\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180122000718","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

决策支持系统(DSS)越来越多地支持人类决策。人类需要通过监控和批准/拒绝机器建议来保持 "循环"。然而,使用 DSS 可能会导致过度依赖机器,从而减少人类的监督。本文提出了 "反思机器"(RM),以增加有意义的人工控制。反思机为医学专家提供的不是决策建议,而是激发决策反思的问题。它可以参考数据点,或提出与计划决策不太相符的反驳意见。RM反向思考所建议的决策,以增强人类对自动化自满情绪的抵抗力。在初步研究的基础上,本文将:(1)从欧盟法规中提出一系列RM设计要求;(2)提出RM支持决策的方法;(3)描述RM原型如何应用于慢性腰背痛医疗领域的可能性;(4)强调探索RM功能和用户使用经验的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reflection Machines: Supporting Effective Human Oversight Over Medical Decision Support Systems.

Human decisions are increasingly supported by decision support systems (DSS). Humans are required to remain "on the loop," by monitoring and approving/rejecting machine recommendations. However, use of DSS can lead to overreliance on machines, reducing human oversight. This paper proposes "reflection machines" (RM) to increase meaningful human control. An RM provides a medical expert not with suggestions for a decision, but with questions that stimulate reflection about decisions. It can refer to data points or suggest counterarguments that are less compatible with the planned decision. RMs think against the proposed decision in order to increase human resistance against automation complacency. Building on preliminary research, this paper will (1) make a case for deriving a set of design requirements for RMs from EU regulations, (2) suggest a way how RMs could support decision-making, (3) describe the possibility of how a prototype of an RM could apply to the medical domain of chronic low back pain, and (4) highlight the importance of exploring an RM's functionality and the experiences of users working with it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
×
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