Cited by 103Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Trustworthy AI: Closing the gap between development and integration of AI systems in ophthalmic practice

Open access
González-Gonzalo, Cristina, Thee, Eric F., Klaver, Caroline C.W., Lee, Aaron Y., Schlingemann, Reinier O., Tufail, Adnan, Verbraak, Frank, Sánchez, Clara I.·2022·Progress in Retinal and Eye Research

Abstract

An increasing number of artificial intelligence (AI) systems are being proposed in ophthalmology, motivated by the variety and amount of clinical and imaging data, as well as their potential benefits at the different stages of patient care. Despite achieving close or even superior performance to that of experts, there is a critical gap between development and integration of AI systems in ophthalmic practice. This work focuses on the importance of trustworthy AI to close that gap. We identify the main aspects or challenges that need to be considered along the AI design pipeline so as to generate systems that meet the requirements to be deemed trustworthy, including those concerning accuracy, resiliency, reliability, safety, and accountability. We elaborate on mechanisms and considerations to address those aspects or challenges, and define the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders involved in AI for ophthalmic care, i.e., AI developers, reading centers, healthcare providers, healthcare institutions, ophthalmological societies and working groups or committees, patients, regulatory bodies, and payers. Generating trustworthy AI is not a responsibility of a sole stakeholder. There is an impending necessity for a collaborative approach where the different stakeholders are represented along the AI design pipeline, from the definition of the intended use to post-market surveillance after regulatory approval. This work contributes to establish such multi-stakeholder interaction and the main action points to be taken so that the potential benefits of AI reach real-world ophthalmic settings.

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 · 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2021.101034

Cites

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?

  • AI has the potential to address 20% of all clinical needs in a few years.

    “AI is one of the most important developments in medical fields where it is estimated that in a few years, AI has the potential to address 20% of all clinical needs [29].”

    From A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    In “Definition of intended use > Intended use and business model,” the paper estimates that AI could address 20% of *unmet* clinical needs in the coming five years. The citing sentence retains the approximate figure and timeframe but changes “unmet clinical needs” to “all clinical needs,” broadening the claim beyond what the paper says. No page number is provided in the supplied passage. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 212 · Cited by 103

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. American Medical Association, 2019, 2019. Augmented intelligence in health care. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-08/ai-2018-board-policy-summary.pdf. Accessed: 2021, August 12.
  2. Asgari R, Orlando JI, Waldstein S, Schlanitz F, Baratsits M, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Bogunovic H, 2019. Multiclass segmentation as multitask learning for drusen segmentation in retinal optical coherence tomography, in: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, Springer. pp. 192– 200.
  3. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2020, 2020. New AAMC report confirms growing physician shortage. https://www.aamc.org/newsinsights/press-releases/new-aamc-report-confirmsgrowing-physician-shortage. Accessed: 2021, July 8.
  4. Bellemo V, Burlina P, Yong L, Wong TY, Ting DSW, 2018. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) for retinal fundus image synthesis, in: Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Springer. pp. 289– 302.
  5. Bengio Y, Goodfellow I, Courville A, 2017. Deep learning. volume 1. MIT Press Massachusetts, USA.
  6. Cihon P, 2019. Standards for AI governance: international standards to enable global coordination in AI research & development. Future of Humanity Institute. University of Oxford.
  7. Cisco and Cybersecurity Ventures, 2019, 2019. Press release: 2019/2020 cybersecurity almanac: 100 facts, figures, predictions and statistics. https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybersecurity-almanac-2019/. Accessed: 2021, April 26.
  8. Digital Diagnostics, 2020, 2020. Press release: Historic proposed CMS rule will allow first-ever reimbursement of autonomous AI in a healthcare setting. https://dxs.ai/newsroom/historic-proposed-cmsrule-will-allow-first-ever-reimbursement-of-autonomousai-in-a-healthcare-setting/. Accessed: 2021, June 30.
  9. Guan M, Gulshan V, Dai A, Hinton G, 2018. Who said what: Modeling individual labelers improves classification, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  10. Li Y, Gal Y, 2017. Dropout inference in Bayesian neural networks with alpha-divergences, in: International conference on machine learning, PMLR. pp. 2052– 2061.
  11. Liefers B, González-Gonzalo C, Klaver C, van Ginneken B, Sánchez CI, 2019. Dense segmentation in selected dimensions: application to retinal optical coherence tomography, in: International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, PMLR. pp. 337– 346.
  12. Notal Vision, 2018, 2018. Notal Vision announces FDA grants breakthrough device designation for pioneering patient operated home Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) system. https://notalvision.com/assets/press-releases/Notal-VisionAnnounces-FDA-Grants-Breakthrough-Device-Designationfor-Pioneering-Patient-Operated-Home-Optical-CoherenceTomography-OCT-System.pdf. Accessed: 2021, August 3.
  13. Wang W, Siau K, 2018. Ethical and moral issues with AI: a case study on healthcare robots, in: Twenty-fourth Americas conference on information systems, p. 2019.
  14. Zhang H, Yu Y, Jiao J, Xing E, El Ghaoui L, Jordan M, 2019. Theoretically principled trade-off between robustness and accuracy, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR. pp. 7472– 7482.

Authors
González-Gonzalo, C., Thee, E. F., Klaver, C. C. W., Lee, A. Y., Schlingemann, R. O., Tufail, A., Verbraak, F., & Sánchez, C. I.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
González-Gonzalo, Cristina
Venue
Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
90
Pages
101034
ISSN
1350-9462 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200295368
Cited by
103
References
212
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 6
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Progress in Retinal and Eye Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 116076)
  • Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Carl Zeiss Meditec AG (K23EY029246)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (P15-26)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (116076)
  • Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Erasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam
  • National Institute on Aging (U19AG066567, R01AG060942)
  • National Eye Institute (K23EY029246)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
trustworthy AI, clinical implementation of AI, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, multi-stakeholder collaboration, post-marketing surveillance, regulatory approval, ocular imaging
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Ophthalmology, Reproducibility of Results

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