Co-designing diagnosis: towards a responsible integration of Machine Learning decision-support systems in medical diagnostics
Open accessAbstract
Rationale: This paper aims to show how the focus on eradicating bias from Machine Learning decision‐support systems in medical diagnosis diverts attention from the hermeneutic nature of medical decision‐making and the productive role of bias. We want to show how an introduction of Machine Learning systems alters the diagnostic process. Reviewing the negative conception of bias and incorporating the mediating role of Machine Learning systems in the medical diagnosis are essential for an encompassing, critical and informed medical decision‐making. Methods: This paper presents a philosophical analysis, employing the conceptual frameworks of hermeneutics and technological mediation, while drawing on the case of Machine Learning algorithms assisting doctors in diagnosis. This paper unravels the non‐neutral role of algorithms in the doctor's decision‐making and points to the dialogical nature of interaction not only with the patients but also with the technologies that co‐shape the diagnosis. Findings: Following the hermeneutical model of medical diagnosis, we review the notion of bias to show how it is an inalienable and productive part of diagnosis. We show how Machine Learning biases join the human ones to actively shape the diagnostic process, simultaneously expanding and narrowing medical attention, highlighting certain aspects, while disclosing others, thus mediating medical perceptions and actions. Based on that, we demonstrate how doctors can take Machine Learning systems on board for an enhanced medical diagnosis, while being aware of their non‐neutral role. Conclusions: We show that Machine Learning systems join doctors and patients in co‐designing a triad of medical diagnosis. We highlight that it is imperative to examine the hermeneutic role of the Machine Learning systems. Additionally, we suggest including not only the patient, but also colleagues to ensure an encompassing diagnostic process, to respect its inherently hermeneutic nature and to work productively with the existing human and machine biases.
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?
Cognitive bias is introduced during data annotation or input processes and often reflects subjective judgments of healthcare providers, such as manual data entry errors or inconsistent diagnoses.
“Cognitive bias also poses a major challenge (n = 5), introduced during data annotation or input processes. Kudina et al. and Sikstrom et al., [49,51] acknowledge that this bias often reflects the subjective judgments of healthcare providers, such as manual data entry errors or inconsistent diagnoses.”
From Frameworks encompassing intersectional perspective of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
The sections “From Bias to the Question of Expertise” and “Expertise and Medical Diagnosis: Gadamer’s Notion of Fore-Understanding” discuss biased datasets and clinicians’ preconceptions in diagnosis. They do not attribute cognitive bias to data annotation or input processes, or give manual entry errors and inconsistent diagnoses as examples. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · see citing works
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., et al. (2018) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 · Cited by 4,774 · see citing works
European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a “Right to Explanation”
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741 · Cited by 2,131 · see citing works
Implementing Machine Learning in Health Care — Addressing Ethical Challenges
Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1714229 · Cited by 1,857 · see citing works
The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review
Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Joshi, I., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172 · Cited by 1,105 · cited 1× · see citing works
“related to the introduction of ML beyond the narrow focus on bias.(4) In fact, so it is argued, the belief that algorithms are—in contrast with human beings—harbours of objectivity is a “carefully crafted myth”.”
BackgroundWhat do medical students actually need to know about artificial intelligence?
McCoy, L. G., Nagaraj, S., Morgado, F., Harish, V., Das, S., & Celi, L. A. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0294-7 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Torous, J., Wisniewski, H., Bird, B., Carpenter, E., David, G., Elejalde, E., Fulford, D., Guimond, S., Hays, R., Henson, P., et al. (2019) · Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s41347-019-00095-w · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [1]Drew T, Vo MLH, Wolfe JM. The invisible gorilla strikes again: sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24: 1848‐ 1853. 10.1177/0956797613479386. 23863753 PMC3964612 · DOI
- [3]O'Sullivan ED, Schofield SJ. Cognitive bias in clinical medicine. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018; 48: 225‐ 232. 10.4997/JRCPE.2018.306. 30191910 · DOI · Paper page
- [7]Schönberg D. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a critical analysis of the legal and ethical implications. Int J Law Inf Technol. 2019; 27: 171‐ 203. 10.1093/ijlit/eaz004. · DOI · Paper page
- [13]Cabitza F, Rasoini R, Gensini GF. Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA. 2017; 318: 517‐ 518. 10.1001/jama.2017.7797. 28727867 · DOI · Paper page
- [14]Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ, Foot KA. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2014.
- [15]Topol EJ. High‐performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019; 25: 44‐ 56. 30617339
- [17]Cai CJ, Winter S, Steiner D, Wilcox L, Terry M. “Hello AI”: uncovering the onboarding needs of medical practitioners for Human‐AI collaborative decision‐making. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the ACM on Human‐Computer Interaction; November 2019:104. 10.1145/3359206. · DOI · Paper page
- [18]Paul HY, Hui FK, Ting DS. Artificial intelligence and radiology: collaboration is key. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 781‐ 783. 29398492
- [20]Zerili J, Knott A, Maclaurin J, Gavaghan C. Transparency in algorithmic and human decision‐making: is there a double standard? Philos Technol. 2019; 32: 661‐ 683.
- [21]Coeckelbergh M. AI Ethics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2020.
- [22]Grote T, Berens P. On the ethics of algorithmic decision‐making in healthcare. J Med Ethics. 2020; 46: 205‐ 211. 10.1136/medethics-2019-105586. 31748206 PMC7042960 · DOI · Paper page
- [23]van Baalen S, Carusi A, Sabroe I, Kiely DG. A social‐technological epistemology of clinical decision‐making as mediated by imaging. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017; 23: 949‐ 958. 10.1111/jep.12637. 27696641 PMC5655732 · DOI
- [24]Svenaeus F. The Hermeneutics of Medicine and the Phenomenology of Health: Steps Towards a Philosophy of Medical Practice. Vol 5. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
- [25]Leder D. Clinical interpretation: the hermeneutics of medicine. Theor Med. 1990; 11: 9‐ 24. 2339336
- [28]Verbeek P‐P. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2005.
- [29]Tschandl P, Rinner C, Apalla Z, et al. Human–computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med. 2020; 26: 1229‐ 1234. 10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0. 32572267 · DOI · Paper page
- [31]de Boer B, Kudina O. What is morally at stake when using algorithms to make medical diagnoses? Expanding the discussion beyond risks and harms. Theor Med Bioeth. In press. PMC8907081 34978638
- [32]Chung J, Zink A. Hey Watson ‐ Can I sue you for malpractice? Examining the liability of Artificial Intelligence in medicine. Asia Pac J Health Law Ethics. 2018; 11: 51‐ 80.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Designing for Control in Nurse-AI Collaboration During Emergency Medical Calls
Berge, A., Guribye, F., Fotland, S.-L. S., Fonnes, G., Johansen, I. H., & Trattner, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3563657.3596110 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Epistemo-ethical constraints on AI-human decision making for diagnostic purposes
Babushkina, D., & Votsis, A. (2022) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09629-y · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Regulating AI in Health Care: The Challenges of Informed User Engagement
Kudina, O. (2021) · Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.1263 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationAmaya-Santos, S., Vargas, C., & Bermúdez-Tamayo, C. (2026) · Public Health in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100713 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Inclusion of multidisciplinary teams: Involve experts from diverse fields, including social scientists, ethicists, and domain experts in the design process to identify and mitigate unintended biases [47 – 49].”
- Authors
- Kudina, O., & de Boer, B.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Philosophy Department University of Twente Enschede the Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Kudina, Olya
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-01-22
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 529-536
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- PMC
- PMC8248235
- OpenAlex
- W3123730699
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- H2020 European Research Council (788321)
- 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
- diagnosis, algorithmic bias, hermeneutics, technological mediation, clinical decision-making, human-machine collaboration, dialogic interaction, responsible AI adoption
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Decision-Making, Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans
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