将人工智能系统引入医疗保健行业何时安全?黑箱人工智能在医学中伦理实现的实用决策算法。

IF 2.1 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-09-18 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70032
Jemima Winifred Allen, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu
{"title":"将人工智能系统引入医疗保健行业何时安全?黑箱人工智能在医学中伦理实现的实用决策算法。","authors":"Jemima Winifred Allen, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is mounting global interest in the revolutionary potential of AI tools. However, its use in healthcare carries certain risks. Some argue that opaque ('black box') AI systems in particular undermine patients' informed consent. While interpretable models offer an alternative, this approach may be impossible with generative AI and large language models (LLMs). Thus, we propose that AI tools should be evaluated for clinical use based on their implementation risk, rather than interpretability. We introduce a practical decision algorithm for the clinical implementation of black-box AI by evaluating its risk of implementation. Applied to the case of an LLM for surgical informed consent, we assess a system's implementation risk by evaluating: (1) technical robustness, (2) implementation feasibility and (3) analysis of harms and benefits. Accordingly, the system is categorised as minimal-risk (standard use), moderate-risk (innovative use) or high-risk (experimental use). Recommendations for implementation are proportional to risk, requiring more oversight for higher-risk categories. The algorithm also considers the system's cost-effectiveness and patients' informed consent.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Is It Safe to Introduce an AI System Into Healthcare? A Practical Decision Algorithm for the Ethical Implementation of Black-Box AI in Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Jemima Winifred Allen, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.70032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is mounting global interest in the revolutionary potential of AI tools. However, its use in healthcare carries certain risks. Some argue that opaque ('black box') AI systems in particular undermine patients' informed consent. While interpretable models offer an alternative, this approach may be impossible with generative AI and large language models (LLMs). Thus, we propose that AI tools should be evaluated for clinical use based on their implementation risk, rather than interpretability. We introduce a practical decision algorithm for the clinical implementation of black-box AI by evaluating its risk of implementation. Applied to the case of an LLM for surgical informed consent, we assess a system's implementation risk by evaluating: (1) technical robustness, (2) implementation feasibility and (3) analysis of harms and benefits. Accordingly, the system is categorised as minimal-risk (standard use), moderate-risk (innovative use) or high-risk (experimental use). Recommendations for implementation are proportional to risk, requiring more oversight for higher-risk categories. The algorithm also considers the system's cost-effectiveness and patients' informed consent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球对人工智能工具的革命性潜力越来越感兴趣。然而,在医疗保健中使用它会带来一定的风险。一些人认为,不透明的(“黑箱”)人工智能系统尤其会破坏患者的知情同意。虽然可解释模型提供了另一种选择,但对于生成式人工智能和大型语言模型(llm)来说,这种方法可能是不可能的。因此,我们建议应该根据人工智能工具的实施风险而不是可解释性来评估其临床应用。通过评估黑箱人工智能的实施风险,提出了一种实用的黑箱人工智能临床实施决策算法。应用于外科手术知情同意法学硕士的案例,我们通过评估:(1)技术稳健性,(2)实施可行性和(3)危害和收益分析来评估系统的实施风险。因此,该系统被分类为最低风险(标准使用),中等风险(创新使用)或高风险(实验使用)。实施建议与风险成正比,需要对高风险类别进行更多监督。该算法还考虑了系统的成本效益和患者的知情同意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When Is It Safe to Introduce an AI System Into Healthcare? A Practical Decision Algorithm for the Ethical Implementation of Black-Box AI in Medicine.

There is mounting global interest in the revolutionary potential of AI tools. However, its use in healthcare carries certain risks. Some argue that opaque ('black box') AI systems in particular undermine patients' informed consent. While interpretable models offer an alternative, this approach may be impossible with generative AI and large language models (LLMs). Thus, we propose that AI tools should be evaluated for clinical use based on their implementation risk, rather than interpretability. We introduce a practical decision algorithm for the clinical implementation of black-box AI by evaluating its risk of implementation. Applied to the case of an LLM for surgical informed consent, we assess a system's implementation risk by evaluating: (1) technical robustness, (2) implementation feasibility and (3) analysis of harms and benefits. Accordingly, the system is categorised as minimal-risk (standard use), moderate-risk (innovative use) or high-risk (experimental use). Recommendations for implementation are proportional to risk, requiring more oversight for higher-risk categories. The algorithm also considers the system's cost-effectiveness and patients' informed consent.

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
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
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