The right to a second opinion on Artificial Intelligence diagnosis—Remedying the inadequacy of a risk‐based regulation
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we argue that patients who are subjects of Artificial Intelligence (AI)‐supported diagnosis and treatment planning should have a right to a second opinion, but also that this right should not necessarily be construed as a right to a physician opinion. The right to a second opinion could potentially be satisfied by another independent AI system. Our considerations on the right to second opinion are embedded in the wider debate on different approaches to the regulation of AI, and we conclude the article by providing a number of reasons for preferring a rights‐based approach over a risk‐based approach.
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?
Currently, patients can decline being evaluated by AI-based tools according to the right to informed consent for any procedure in the hospital.
“Currently, patients can decline being evaluated by AI-based tools according to the right to informed consent for any procedure in the hospital.129”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [129]
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
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089 · Cited by 1,162 · see citing works
Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine
Cabitza, F., Rasoini, R., & Gensini, G. F. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7797 · Cited by 1,066 · see citing works
Misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation and its clinical consequences
Bogun, F. M., Anh, D., Kalahasty, G., Wißner, E., Serhal, C. B., Bazzi, R., Weaver, W. D., & Schuger, C. D. (2004) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.06.024 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Automation bias: Empirical results assessing influencing factors
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2014) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.001 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Computer Decision Support as a Source of Interpretation Error: The Case of Electrocardiograms
Tsai, T. L., Fridsma, D. B., & Gatti, G. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1279 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Societal Issues Concerning the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Vellido, A. (2018) · Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1159/000492428 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Bond, R. R., Novotny, T., Andrsova, I., Koc, L., Sisakova, M., Finlay, D., Guldenring, D., McLaughlin, J., Peace, A., McGilligan, V., et al. (2018) · Journal of Electrocardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2018.08.007 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Payne, V. L., Singh, H., Meyer, A. N. D., Levy, L., Harrison, D. A., & Graber, M. L. (2014) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.02.015 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Deskilling and adaptation among primary care physicians using two work innovations
Hoff, T. J. (2011) · Health Care Management Review · doi:10.1097/hmr.0b013e31821826a1 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective
Greenfield, G., Pliskin, J. S., Feder‐Bubis, P., Wientroub, S., & Davidovitch, N. (2012) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.026 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Automation bias - a hidden issue for clinical decision support system use.
Goddard, K. S., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2011) · PubMed · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Philip, J. A. M., Gold, M., Schwarz, M. A., et al. (2010) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1111/j.1743-7563.2010.01330.x · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Arthur, A. S., Mocco, J., Linfante, I., et al. (2018) · Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014536 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Shmueli, L., Davidovitch, N., Pliskin, J. S., Hekselman, I., Balicer, R. D., & Greenfield, G. (2019) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4067-4 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Misdiagnosis of atrial fibrillation and its clinical consequences
Bogun, F. M., Anh, D., & Kalahasty, G. (2005) · ACC Current Journal Review · doi:10.1016/j.accreview.2004.12.142 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Patient-initiated second opinions during acute hospital care
Gagin, R., HaGani, N., Zigelboim, E., et al. (2019) · Patient Experience Journal · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1381 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Alberdi, E., Povyakalo, A., Strigini, L., & Ayton, P. (2004). Effects of incorrect computer- aided detection (CAD) output on human decision-making in mammography. Academic Radiology, 11(8), 909-918;
- Golchin, K., & Roudsari, A. (2011). Study of the effects of clinical decision support system's incorrect advice and clinical case difficulty onusers' decision making accuracy. In Borycki, E., Bartle-Clar, J. A., Househ, M. S., Kuziemski, C. E., & Schraa, E. G. (Eds.). International perspectives in health informatics (pp. 13-16). IOS Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Koçak, B., Ponsiglione, A., Stanzione, A., Bluethgen, C., Santinha, J., Ugga, L., Huisman, M., Klontzas, M. E., Cannella, R., & Cuocolo, R. (2024) · Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.4274/dir.2024.242854 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ploug, T., & Holm, S.
- Affiliations
- Aalborg University (DK)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Ploug, Thomas
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-11-26
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 303-311
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8519
- OpenAlex
- W4310296977
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioethics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence diagnosis, AI regulation, risk-based regulation, rights-based approach, patient rights, clinical decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Physicians, Referral and Consultation
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
