PreprintCited by 60Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AI

FUTURE-AI: Guiding Principles and Consensus Recommendations for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging

Open access
Lekadir, Karim, Osuala, Richard, Gallin, Catherine, Lazrak, Noussair, Kushibar, Kaisar, Tsakou, Gianna, Aussó, Susanna, Alberich, Leonor Cerdá +8 more·2021·arXiv

Abstract

The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) combined with the extensive amount of data generated by today's clinical systems, has led to the development of imaging AI solutions across the whole value chain of medical imaging, including image reconstruction, medical image segmentation, image-based diagnosis and treatment planning. Notwithstanding the successes and future potential of AI in medical imaging, many stakeholders are concerned of the potential risks and ethical implications of imaging AI solutions, which are perceived as complex, opaque, and difficult to comprehend, utilise, and trust in critical clinical applications. Addressing these concerns and risks, the FUTURE-AI framework has been proposed, which, sourced from a global multi-domain expert consensus, comprises guiding principles for increased trust, safety, and adoption for AI in healthcare. In this paper, we transform the general FUTURE-AI healthcare principles to a concise and specific AI implementation guide tailored to the needs of the medical imaging community. To this end, we carefully assess each building block of the FUTURE-AI framework consisting of (i) Fairness, (ii) Universality, (iii) Traceability, (iv) Usability, (v) Robustness and (vi) Explainability, and respectively define concrete best practices based on accumulated AI implementation experiences from five large European projects on AI in Health Imaging. We accompany our concrete step-by-step medical imaging development guide with a practical AI solution maturity checklist, thus enabling AI development teams to design, evaluate, maintain, and deploy technically, clinically and ethically trustworthy imaging AI solutions into clinical practice.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2109.09658

Cites

165 of 165 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?

  • Even when provenance metadata is recorded correctly at creation, pipeline transitions can compromise its persistence.

    “Even when provenance metadata is recorded correctly at creation, pipeline transitions can compromise its persistence [22].”

    From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Traceability section (pp. 13, 16) recommends tracking provenance through data transformations and retaining imaging metadata. It does not say that pipeline transitions can cause correctly recorded provenance metadata to be lost, so the specific failure described in the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Walled APIs allow platforms to provide outputs without operational traces, eliminating visibility into how content was produced.

    “Walled APIs further allow platforms to provide outputs without operational traces, eliminating visibility into how content was produced [22].”

    From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Traceability section (pp. 12–13) says that documenting AI development and tracking provenance help avoid uncertainty about what happened and make production processes visible. It does not say that walled APIs allow platforms to return outputs without operational traces, so the API-specific claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Provenance is only meaningful if metadata persists across file conversions, platform transfers, and publication environments.

    “Provenance is only meaningful if metadata persists across file conversions, platform transfers, and publication environments [22].”

    From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Traceability section (pp. 13, 16–17) recommends tracking provenance through data transformations, retaining imaging metadata, and keeping a metadata-rich model passport throughout the model’s lifecycle. It does not say that provenance is only meaningful if metadata survives file conversions, platform transfers, and publication environments; those specific conditions and the absolute requirement go beyond the source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Breakdowns in provenance integrity often begin with non-disclosure, where provenance fields are omitted due to workflow gaps, limited platform support, or intentional concealment of AI involvement.

    “Breakdowns in provenance integrity often begin with non-disclosure, where provenance fields are omitted due to workflow gaps, limited platform support, or intentional concealment of AI involvement [22].”

    From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    Section 4 (pp. 12, 16) says traceability requires a complete account of AI provenance and recommends documenting provenance information. It does not say that breakdowns often begin with omitted fields or attribute omissions to workflow gaps, limited platform support, or intentional concealment of AI involvement. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI-generated works require explicit statements of model provenance and generative parameters, since conventional authorship claims may not be legally defensible.

    “These require explicit statements of model provenance and generative parameters, since conventional authorship claims may not be legally defensible [22].”

    From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Traceability section (pp. 12–13) calls for documenting AI-model development and provenance, and its model-passport recommendation (p. 17) specifies model metadata. These recommendations concern AI systems in medical imaging, not explicit disclosures for AI-generated works. The cited passages do not address generative parameters or whether conventional authorship claims are legally defensible. (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

2 of the 167 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [5][5] Alan Alexander, Adam Jiang, Cara Ferreira, and Delphine Zurkiya. An intelligent future for medical imaging: a market outlook on artificial intelligence for medical imaging. Journal of the American College of Radiology , 17(1):165-170, 2020. -
  2. [13][13] Imon Banerjee, Ananth Reddy Bhimireddy, John L Burns, Leo Anthony Celi, Li-Ching Chen, Ramon Correa, Natalie Dullerud, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Shih-Cheng Huang, Po-Chih Kuo, et al. Reading race: Ai recognises patient's racial identity in medical images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10356 , 2021. - · arXiv
  3. [25][25] Leonor Cerd´ a Alberich, Cinta Sang¨ uesa Nebot, Angel Alberich-Bayarri, Jos´ e Miguel Carot Sierra, Blanca Mart´ ınez de las Heras, Diana Veiga Canuto, Adela Ca˜ nete, and Luis Mart´ ı-Bonmat´ ı. A confidence habitats methodology in mr quantitative diffusion for the classification of neuroblastic tumors. Cancers , 12(12):3858, 2020. -
  4. [35][35] Fabian Eitel, Kerstin Ritter, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI, et al. Testing the robustness of attribution methods for convolutional neural networks in mri-based alzheimer's disease classification. In Interpretability of Machine Intelligence in Medical Image Computing and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support , pages 3-11. Springer, 2019. -
  5. [55][55] Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572 , 2014. - · arXiv
  6. [64][64] Andreas Holzinger, Andr´ e Carrington, and Heimo M¨ uller. Measuring the quality of explanations: the system causability scale (scs). KI-K¨ unstliche Intelligenz , pages 1-6, 2020. -
  7. [76][76] Wiard Jorritsma, Fokie Cnossen, and Peter MA van Ooijen. Merits of usability testing for pacs selection. international journal of medical informatics , 83(1):27-36, 2014. -
  8. [94][94] Karim Lekadir, Aasa Feragen, Abdul Joseph Fofanah, Alejandro F Frangi, Alena Buyx, Anais Emelie, Andrea Lara, Antonio R Porras, An-Wen Chan, Arcadi Navarro, et al. Future-ai: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12325 , 2023. - · arXiv
  9. [96][96] Xiaoxiao Li, Junyan Wu, Eric Z Chen, and Hongda Jiang. From deep learning towards finding skin lesion biomarkers. In 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) , pages 2797-2800. IEEE, 2019. -
  10. [134][134] WNicholson Price, Sara Gerke, and I Glenn Cohen. Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. Jama , 322(18):1765-1766, 2019. -
  11. [150][150] Claude Sammut and Michael Harries. Concept Drift , pages 202-205. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2010. ISBN 978-0-387-30164-8. doi: 10.1007 / 978-0-387-30164-8 153. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-0-387-30164-8\_153 . -
  12. [156][156] Andrew Selbst and Julia Powles. 'meaningful information' and the right to explanation. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pages 48-48. PMLR, 2018. -
  13. [167][167] K. Suzuki, M. Reyes, T. Syeda-Mahmood, E. Konukoglu, B. Glocker, R. Wiest, Y. Gur, H. Greenspan, and A. (Eds.) Madabhushi. Interpretability of Machine Intelligence in Medical Image Computing and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support . Springer International Publishing, 2019. URL https: //www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030338497 . -
  14. [169][169] THE FUTURE OF LIFE INSTITUTE (FLI). Asilomar AI Principles; Principles developed in conjunction with the 2017 Asilomar conference 2017, 2017. URL https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/ . -
  15. [181][181] World Health Organization. Basic documents . World Health Organization, 49th ed edition, 2020. -
  16. [187][187] Matei Zaharia, Andrew Chen, Aaron Davidson, Ali Ghodsi, Sue Ann Hong, Andy Konwinski, Siddharth Murching, Tomas Nykodym, Paul Ogilvie, Mani Parkhe, et al. Accelerating the machine learning lifecycle with mlflow. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. , 41(4):39-45, 2018. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lekadir, K., Osuala, R., Gallin, C., Lazrak, N., Kushibar, K., Tsakou, G., Aussó, S., Alberich, L. C., Marias, K., Tsiknakis, M., Colantonio, S., Papanikolaou, N., Salahuddin, Z., Woodruff, H. C., Lambin, P., & Martí-Bonmatí, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199238487
Cited by
58
References
167
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
trustworthy AI, medical imaging AI, fairness, universality, traceability, usability, robustness, explainability, AI ethics, clinical adoption of AI, image reconstruction, medical image segmentation, diagnostic imaging, treatment planning

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