Cited by 37Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Digitalization, Law, and Regulation

Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: “Unexplainable” Legal and Ethical Challenges?

Lang, Michael, Bernier, Alexander, Knoppers, Bartha Maria·2022·Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Abstract

Nowhere is the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) likely to be more profoundly felt than in health care, from patient triage and diagnosis to surgery and follow-up. Over the medium-term, these effects will be more acute in the cardiovascular imaging context, in which AI models are already successfully performing at approximately human levels of accuracy and efficiency in certain applications. Yet, the adoption of unexplainable AI systems for cardiovascular imaging still raises significant legal and ethical challenges. We focus in particular on challenges posed by the unexplainable character of deep learning and other forms of sophisticated AI modelling used for cardiovascular imaging by briefly outlining the systems being developed in this space, describing how they work, and considering how they might generate outputs that are not reviewable by physicians or system programmers. We suggest that an unexplainable tendency presents 2 specific ethico-legal concerns: (1) difficulty for health regulators; and (2) confusion about the assignment of liability for error or fault in the use of AI systems. We suggest that addressing these concerns is critical for ensuring AI's successful implementation in cardiovascular imaging.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cjca.2021.10.009

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Opacity of an algorithm leads to ambiguity on whether the ML output can be trusted enough for the clinician to move forward with clinical decision-making or should be overridden due to lack of certitude or misalignment with traditional clinical judgment.

    “This leads to ambiguity on whether the ML output can be trusted enough for the clinician to move forward with the clinical decision-making or should be overridden due to a lack of certitude or misalignment with traditional clinical judgment [80].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lang, M., Bernier, A., & Knoppers, B. M.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Lang, Michael
  • Knoppers, Bartha Maria
Venue
Canadian Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-02
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
225-233
ISSN
0828-282X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3209048534
Cited by
37
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canada Research Chairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, cardiovascular imaging, explainable AI, deep learning, legal liability, medical ethics, health regulation, algorithmic transparency, AI adoption in healthcare
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Cardiology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Delivery of Health Care, Diagnostic Techniques, Cardiovascular, Humans

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