Cited by 120Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIMachine Learning in Healthcare

A framework for the oversight and local deployment of safe and high-quality prediction models

Open access
Bedoya, Armando D, Economou-Zavlanos, Nicoleta J, Goldstein, Benjamin A, Young, Allison, Jelovsek, J Eric, O’Brien, Cara, Parrish, Amanda B, Elengold, Scott +5 more·2022·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Artificial intelligence/machine learning models are being rapidly developed and used in clinical practice. However, many models are deployed without a clear understanding of clinical or operational impact and frequently lack monitoring plans that can detect potential safety signals. There is a lack of consensus in establishing governance to deploy, pilot, and monitor algorithms within operational healthcare delivery workflows. Here, we describe a governance framework that combines current regulatory best practices and lifecycle management of predictive models being used for clinical care. Since January 2021, we have successfully added models to our governance portfolio and are currently managing 52 models.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocac078

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • These assumptions may not hold equally across low- and middle-income countries, smaller hospitals, rural systems, or institutions with limited digital maturity, where the infrastructure required for continuous monitoring, subgroup surveillance, drift detection, formal change control, and incident response may be more difficult to sustain.

    “These assumptions may not hold equally across low- and middle-income countries, smaller hospitals, rural systems, or institutions with limited digital maturity, where the infrastructure required for continuous monitoring, subgroup surveillance, drift detection, formal change control, and incident response may be more difficult to sustain [49,50,51,52].”

    From Beyond Model Development in Healthcare AI: Post-Development Robustness, Post-Deployment Monitoring, and Lifecycle Governance—A Scoping Review of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [51]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The feasibility of lifecycle governance is likely to vary substantially across health systems because many recommendations assume access to data infrastructure, informatics expertise, technical staffing, procurement capacity, legal support, regulatory maturity, and multidisciplinary oversight structures.

    “The feasibility of lifecycle governance is likely to vary substantially across health systems because many recommendations assume access to data infrastructure, informatics expertise, technical staffing, procurement capacity, legal support, regulatory maturity, and multidisciplinary oversight structures [49,50,51,52].”

    From Beyond Model Development in Healthcare AI: Post-Development Robustness, Post-Deployment Monitoring, and Lifecycle Governance—A Scoping Review of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [51]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chen et al. and Reddy et al. proposed a structure of subpanels, overseen by an executive-level overarching committee, each with specific foci to spearhead different aspects of evaluation throughout the AI lifecycle.

    “Chen et al. and Reddy et al. proposed a structure of subpanels, overseen by an executive-level overarching committee, each with specific foci to spearhead different aspects of evaluation throughout the AI lifecycle8,17.”

    From Advancing healthcare AI governance through a comprehensive maturity model based on systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The ‘ABCDS oversight committee’ passage describes an executive-level committee overseeing three subcommittees with distinct responsibilities, and Table 1 specifies their evaluation, implementation and monitoring, and regulatory roles. The structure is supported, but this paper describes it as a framework established at Duke; it does not support attributing the proposal to Chen et al. and Reddy et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evidence from activated systems undergoing longitudinal monitoring provides the strongest basis for judging whether a system remains safe, equitable, clinically useful, and governable once embedded in everyday care.

    “Guidance documents can define what should matter; deployment-proximal evaluations can show whether activation appears plausible in a target setting; however, evidence from activated systems undergoing longitudinal monitoring provides the strongest basis for judging whether a system remains safe, equitable, clinically useful, and governable once embedded in everyday care.”
  • Comparable emphases on lifecycle management, local governance, and organisational readiness are visible in recent clinical AI implementation and oversight frameworks and in WHO guidance on AI for health.

    “Comparable emphases on lifecycle management, local governance, and organisational readiness are visible in recent clinical AI implementation and oversight frameworks, as well as in WHO guidance on AI for health [50,51,52].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [9]9. Cannon D. ITIL Service Strategy. 2nd ed. London: The Stationery Office; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  2. [10]10. Pyzdek T. The Six Sigma Handbook. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. [12]12. Stoyanovich J, Howe B.. Nutritional labels for data and models. In: Quarterly Bulletin of the Computer Society of the IEEE Technical Committee on Data Engineering. Vol. 42.Washington, DC: The Committee; 2019. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10176629 Accessed December 30, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. [13]13. Mitchell M, Wu S, Zaldivar A, et al. Model cards for model reporting. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency; New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; January 2019: 220–9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bedoya, A. D., Economou-Zavlanos, N. J., Goldstein, B. A., Young, A., Jelovsek, J. E., O’Brien, C., Parrish, A. B., Elengold, S., Lytle, K., Balu, S., Huang, E., Poon, E. G., & Pencina, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke University Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Bedoya, Armando D
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2022-05-31
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
1631-1636
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4282933928
Cited by
119
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 1
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
AI governance, machine learning deployment, model monitoring, clinical workflow integration
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care

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