When the Model Trains You: Induced Belief Revision and Its Implications on Artificial Intelligence Research and Patient Care — A Case Study on Predicting Obstructive Hydronephrosis in Children
Abstract
Exposure to research data and artificial intelligence (AI) model predictions may lead to many sources of bias in clinical decision-making and model evaluation. These include anchoring bias, automation bias, and data leakage. In this case study, we introduce a new source of bias termed "induced belief revision," which we have discovered through our experience developing and testing an AI model to predict obstructive hydronephrosis in children based on their renal ultrasounds. After a silent trial of our hydronephrosis AI model, we observed an unintentional but clinically significant change in practice — characterized by a reduction in nuclear scans from 80 to 58% (P=0.005). This phenomenon occurred in the absence of any identifiable changes in clinical workflow, personnel, practice guidelines, or patient characteristics over time. We postulate that repeated exposures to model predictors and their corresponding labels led to a change in clinical decision-making based on a learned intuition of the model's behavior. There are two types of this phenomenon: data-induced and model-induced belief revision. Data-induced belief revision occurs when clinical end-users develop an unconscious stimulus–response bond based on model features and labels from the data itself. In contrast, model-induced belief revision arises from repeated exposures to model inputs and outputs, resulting in clinicians' anticipating model predictions on unseen data. We hypothesize that model-induced belief revis…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 algorithms may be harmful when prematurely deployed without adequate control.
“AI algorithms may be harmful when prematurely deployed without adequate control [9, 15–17].”
From Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Medicine: a consensus of 22. (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 12 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Kwong, J. C. C., Nguyen, D.-D., Khondker, A., Kim, J. K., Johnson, A. E. W., McCradden, M. M., Kulkarni, G. S., Lorenzo, A., Erdman, L., & Rickard, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Temerty Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Education in Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
- Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Rickard, Mandy
- ORCID
- Venue
- NEJM AI
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2024-01-25
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- AIcs2300004-AIcs2300004
- ISSN
- 2836-9386 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4390911110
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 1.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NEJM AI (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- obstructive hydronephrosis, artificial intelligence in healthcare, clinical practice change, scintigraphy, anchoring effect, automation bias, data leakage
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