Cited by 29Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Clinical applications of AI in MSK imaging: a liability perspective

Open access
Harvey, H. Benjamin, Gowda, Vrushab·2022·Skeletal Radiology

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been gaining traction across the radiology space, promising to redefine its workflow and delivery. However, they enter into an uncertain legal environment. This piece examines the nature, exposure, and theories of liability relevant to musculoskeletal radiologist practice. More specifically, it explores the negligence, vicarious liability, and product liability frameworks by way of illustrative vignettes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00256-021-03782-z

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Courts and state legislatures have yet to articulate an AI-specific standard for informed consent.

    “Courts and state legislatures have yet to articulate an AI-specific standard for informed consent.”
  • Professional bodies have not offered a protocol for obtaining informed consent when using AI tools.

    “Professional bodies have not offered a protocol for obtaining informed consent when using AI tools, which could potentially aid in developing an AI-specific standard of care.”
  • The null result for commonness and superior performance is not consistent with some legal scholars' projections that as AI use becomes more widespread and performance surpasses human doctors, the need for further explanation should decrease.

    “This result is not consistent with some legal scholars’ projections that as the use of AI becomes more widespread and its performance surpasses that of human doctors, the need for further explanation should decrease.11,12”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Tiulpin A, Thevenot J, Rahtu E, Lehenkari P, Saarakkala S. Automatic knee osteoarthritis diagnosis from plain radiographs: a deep learning-based approach. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1727.
  2. Silver T. One hundred years of harmful error: the historical juris- prudence of medical malpractice. 1992 Wis. L Rev. 1992;1193: 1226.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harvey, H. B., & Gowda, V.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gowda, Vrushab
Venue
Skeletal Radiology
Published
2021-04-09
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
235-238
ISSN
  • 0364-2348 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2161
OpenAlex
W3140744160
Cited by
28
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Skeletal Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence in radiology, musculoskeletal imaging, medical liability, negligence, vicarious liability, product liability
MeSH terms
Radiologists, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Radiography, Radiology, Liability, Legal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review