The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Monitoring Deployed AI Systems in Health Care
Open accessAbstract
Post-deployment monitoring of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health care is essential to ensure their safety, quality, and sustained benefit-and to support governance decisions about which systems to update, modify, or decommission. Motivated by these needs, we developed a framework for monitoring deployed AI systems grounded in the mandate to take specific actions when they fail to behave as intended. This framework, which is now actively used at Stanford Health Care, is organized around three complementary principles: system integrity, performance, and impact. System integrity monitoring focuses on maximizing system uptime, detecting runtime errors, and identifying when changes to the surrounding IT ecosystem have unintended effects. Performance monitoring focuses on maintaining accurate system behavior in the face of changing health care practices (and thus input data) over time. Impact monitoring assesses whether a deployed system continues to have value in the form of benefit to clinicians and patients. Drawing on examples of deployed AI systems at our academic medical center, we provide practical guidance for creating monitoring plans based on these principles that specify which metrics to measure, when those metrics should be reviewed, who is responsible for acting when metrics change, and what concrete follow-up actions should be taken-for both traditional and generative AI. We also discuss challenges to implementing this framework, including the effort and cost of monitoring for health systems with limited resources and the difficulty of incorporating data-driven monitoring practices into complex organizations where conflicting priorities and definitions of success often coexist. This framework offers a practical template and starting point for health systems seeking to ensure that AI deployments remain safe and effective over time.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Keyes, T., Callahan, A., Pandya, A. S., Ambers, N., Banda, J. M., Fuentes, M., Lugtu, C., Masariya, P., Nallan, S., O'Brien, C., Wang, T., Alsentzer, E., Chen, J. H., Dash, D., Eisenberg, M. A., Garcia, P., Kotecha, N., Revri, A., Pfeffer, M. A., Shah, N. H., & Jain, S. S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2512.09048
- PMC
- PMC12709494
- OpenAlex
- W4417288864
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Stanford Bio-X
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- post-deployment monitoring, artificial intelligence in healthcare, performance monitoring, impact monitoring, runtime error detection, generative AI, AI governance, monitoring indicators, AI safety
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