Cited by 15Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

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

Kwong, Jethro C. C., Nguyen, David-Dan, Khondker, Adree, Kim, Jin Kyu, Johnson, Alistair E. W., McCradden, Melissa M., Kulkarni, Girish S., Lorenzo, Armando +2 more·2024·NEJM AI

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

Crossref · 10.1056/aics2300004

Cites

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?

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
Venue
NEJM AI
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