Cited by 34Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Co-designing diagnosis: towards a responsible integration of Machine Learning decision-support systems in medical diagnostics

Open access
Kudina, Olya, de Boer, Bas·2021·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jep.13535

Cites

7 of 7 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [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
  2. [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
  3. [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
  4. [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
  5. [14]Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ, Foot KA. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2014.
  6. [15]Topol EJ. High‐performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019; 25: 44‐ 56. 30617339
  7. [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
  8. [18]Paul HY, Hui FK, Ting DS. Artificial intelligence and radiology: collaboration is key. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 781‐ 783. 29398492
  9. [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.
  10. [21]Coeckelbergh M. AI Ethics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2020.
  11. [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
  12. [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
  13. [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.
  14. [25]Leder D. Clinical interpretation: the hermeneutics of medicine. Theor Med. 1990; 11: 9‐ 24. 2339336
  15. [28]Verbeek P‐P. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2005.
  16. [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
  17. [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
  18. [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

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
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
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