Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Handle with care : Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making. / Holm, Sune .

In: Bioethics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2022, p. 178-186.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Holm, S 2022, 'Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making', Bioethics, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12930

APA

Holm, S. (2022). Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making. Bioethics, 36(2), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12930

Vancouver

Holm S. Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making. Bioethics. 2022;36(2):178-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12930

Author

Holm, Sune . / Handle with care : Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making. In: Bioethics. 2022 ; Vol. 36, No. 2. pp. 178-186.

Bibtex

@article{164d8001bd8e4829885409c8a0036677,
title = "Handle with care: Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making",
abstract = "In this article I consider two pertinent questions that practitioners must consider when they deploy an algorithmic system as support in clinical shared decision-making. The first question concerns how to interpret and assess the significance of different performance measures for clinical decision-making. The second question concerns the professional obligations that practitioners have to communicate information about the quality of an algorithm's output to patients in light of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. In the article I review the four standard performance measures used to evaluate and validate algorithms, outline their role in the discussion of algorithmic fairness, and discuss the professional responsibilities that practitioners face when communicating information about these measures to patients.",
author = "Sune Holm",
note = "Special Issue: Promises and Challenges of Medical AI",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1111/bioe.12930",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "178--186",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Handle with care

T2 - Assessing performance measures of medical AI for shared clinical decision-making

AU - Holm, Sune

N1 - Special Issue: Promises and Challenges of Medical AI

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - In this article I consider two pertinent questions that practitioners must consider when they deploy an algorithmic system as support in clinical shared decision-making. The first question concerns how to interpret and assess the significance of different performance measures for clinical decision-making. The second question concerns the professional obligations that practitioners have to communicate information about the quality of an algorithm's output to patients in light of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. In the article I review the four standard performance measures used to evaluate and validate algorithms, outline their role in the discussion of algorithmic fairness, and discuss the professional responsibilities that practitioners face when communicating information about these measures to patients.

AB - In this article I consider two pertinent questions that practitioners must consider when they deploy an algorithmic system as support in clinical shared decision-making. The first question concerns how to interpret and assess the significance of different performance measures for clinical decision-making. The second question concerns the professional obligations that practitioners have to communicate information about the quality of an algorithm's output to patients in light of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. In the article I review the four standard performance measures used to evaluate and validate algorithms, outline their role in the discussion of algorithmic fairness, and discuss the professional responsibilities that practitioners face when communicating information about these measures to patients.

U2 - 10.1111/bioe.12930

DO - 10.1111/bioe.12930

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 34427331

VL - 36

SP - 178

EP - 186

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 272718266