Cited by 18Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

AI-enabled clinical decision support software: a “trust and value checklist” for clinicians

Silcox, Christina, Dentzer, Susan, Bates, David W.·2020·NEJM Catalyst

Abstract

SummaryMachine learning and other forms of artificial intelligence (AI) are playing an increasing role in health care, particularly as an addition to human judgment in the form of clinical decision support (CDS). But as with all technologies, machine learning and AI will also have unintended consequences that could disrupt care and pose considerable risks for patients. It is vitally important that clinicians understand what is behind the recommendations that a CDS system offers and that any such system adds real value and enables clinicians to perform more effectively and efficiently in serving the needs of patients. This article presents a "trust and value checklist" that is aimed not at senior health system leadership, but rather at the clinicians who will be using these systems. The questions that the checklist poses include both those that the clinicians should be considering themselves and some that they will want to make sure that their leadership has addressed when making system selections. All of these questions should be considered, and answered to clinicians' satisfaction, before they start using and relying on CDS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/cat.20.0212

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Evaluating AI within health care organizations using their patients' data is a strategy to address concerns about inaccuracy and limit inaccuracies.

    “One strategy to address this concern and limit inaccuracies is to evaluate AI within health care organizations using their patients’ data.4,20,21”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silcox, C., Dentzer, S., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
NEJM Catalyst
Published
2020-11
Volume
1
Issue
6
ISSN
2642-0007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3094150112
Cited by
18
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
NEJM Catalyst (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
clinical decision support, artificial intelligence in healthcare, machine learning, trust in AI, clinician decision-making, AI risks, unintended consequences of AI

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