Cited by 233Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Framing the challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine

Yu, Kun-Hsing, Kohane, Isaac S·2019·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

On a clear January morning in Florida, a Tesla enthusiast and network entrepreneur was driving his new Tesla Model S on US Highway 27A, returning from a family trip. He had posted dozens of widely circulated YouTube tutorial videos on his vehicle and clearly understood many of the technical details of his car. That day, he let the vehicle run autonomously on Autopilot mode for 37 min, before it crashed into the trailer of a truck turning left. The Autopilot did not identify the white side of the trailer as a potential hazard, and the driver was killed, leaving his family and his high-tech business behind.1 This tragedy is not a metaphor for artificial intelligence (AI) applications but an example of a long-recognised challenge in AI: the Frame Problem.2 Although rarely appreciated in the scholarly and lay descriptions of the stunning recent successes of AI in medical applications, the Frame Problem and related AI challenges will have unintended harmful effects to the care of patients if not directly addressed. With the recent advancement in machine learning algorithms, many medical tasks previously thought to require human expertise have been replicated by AI systems at or above the level of accuracy in human experts. These important demonstrations range from evaluating fundus retinography3 and histopathology4 to reading chest radiographs5 and assessment of skin lesions.6 These studies have encompassed very large numbers of patient cases and have been extensively benchmarked against clinicians. However, all these studies are retrospective in that they involve a collection of labelled cases against which the AI systems are trained and another collection against which they are tested or validated. So far, they have not entered into routine prospective use in the clinic where the Frame Problem will manifest itself most pathologically. The Frame …

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008551

Cites

19 of 19 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, K.-H., & Kohane, I. S.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Yu, Kun-Hsing
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-10-05
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
238-241
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2895083984
Cited by
233
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard University (Harvard Data Science Fellowship)
  • National Institutes of Health (OT3OD025466)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, frame problem, clinical implementation of AI, radiographic interpretation, histopathology, skin lesion assessment
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Quality Control, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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