The clinician-AI interface: intended use and explainability in FDA-cleared AI devices for medical image interpretation
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
As applications of AI in medicine continue to expand, there is an increasing focus on integration into clinical practice. An underappreciated aspect of this clinical translation is where the AI fits into the clinical workflow, and in turn, the outputs generated by the AI to facilitate clinician interaction in this workflow. For instance, in the canonical use case of AI for medical image interpretation, the AI could prioritize cases before clinician review or even autonomously interpret the images without clinician review. A related aspect is explainability - does the AI generate outputs to help explain its predictions to clinicians? While many clinical AI workflows and explainability techniques have been proposed, a summative assessment of the current scope in clinical practice is lacking. Here, we evaluate the current state of FDA-cleared AI devices for medical image interpretation assistance in terms of intended clinical use, outputs generated, and types of explainability offered. We create a curated database focused on these aspects of the clinician-AI interface, where we find a high frequency of "triage" devices, notable variability in output characteristics across products, and often limited explainability of AI predictions. Altogether, we aim to increase transparency of the current landscape of the clinician-AI interface and highlight the need to rigorously assess which strategies ultimately lead to the best clinical outcomes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Recent work has provided insights into subsets of devices, but a comprehensive characterization of FDA-authorized AI-enabled devices is currently lacking.
“Recent work has provided insights into subsets of devices6–11, but a comprehensive characterization of FDA-authorized AI-enabled devices is currently lacking.”
From How AI is used in FDA-authorized medical devices: a taxonomy across 1,016 authorizations (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
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 15 · Cited by 60
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- [2]Babic B Gerke S Evgeniou T Cohen IG Beware explanations from AI in health care Science 2021 373 284 286 10.1126/science.abg1834 34437144 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Bienefeld N Solving the explainable AI conundrum by bridging clinicians’ needs and developers’ goals NPJ Digit. Med. 2023 6 94 10.1038/s41746-023-00837-4 37217779 PMC10202353 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Hosny A Parmar C Quackenbush J Schwartz LH Aerts HJWL Artificial intelligence in radiology Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018 18 500 510 10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5 29777175 PMC6268174 · DOI · Paper page
- [7]Castellino RA Computer aided detection (CAD): an overview Cancer Imaging 2005 5 17 19 10.1102/1470-7330.2005.0018 16154813 PMC1665219 · DOI
- [10]Abràmoff MD Lavin PT Birch M Shah N Folk JC Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices NPJ Digit. Med. 2018 1 39 10.1038/s41746-018-0040-6 31304320 PMC6550188 · DOI · Paper page
- [12]Wu E How medical AI devices are evaluated: limitations and recommendations from an analysis of FDA approvals Nat. Med. 2021 27 582 584 10.1038/s41591-021-01312-x 33820998 · DOI · Paper page
- [13]Clark P Kim J Aphinyanaphongs Y Marketing and US food and drug administration clearance of artificial intelligence and machine learning enabled software in and as medical devices: a systematic review JAMA Netw. Open 2023 6 e2321792 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.21792 37405771 PMC10323702 · DOI
- [14]Muehlematter UJ Bluethgen C Vokinger KN FDA-cleared artificial intelligence and machine learning-based medical devices and their 510(k) predicate networks Lancet Digit Health 2023 5 e618 e626 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00126-7 37625896 · DOI
- [15]Rothenberg SA Prospective evaluation of AI triage of pulmonary emboli on CT pulmonary angiograms Radiology 2023 309 e230702 10.1148/radiol.230702 37787676 · DOI
- [16]Martinez-Gutierrez JC Automated large vessel occlusion detection software and thrombectomy treatment times: a cluster randomized clinical trial JAMA Neurol. 2023 80 1182 1190 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.3206 37721738 PMC10507590 · DOI
- [18]Kunst M Real-world performance of large vessel occlusion artificial intelligence-based computer-aided triage and notification algorithms-what the stroke team needs to know J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2023 23 S1546 1440 37196818
- Authors
- McNamara, S. L., Yi, P. H., & Lotter, W.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lotter, William
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2024-03-26
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 80-80
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10966080
- OpenAlex
- W4393183052
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 7
- FWCI
- 5.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ellison Foundation
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007753)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Keywords
- medical image interpretation, explainability, clinical workflow integration, AI triage, clinical translation of AI, clinical decision support, medical device regulation
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