What Does It Mean for a Medical AI System to Be Right?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper examines what it means for a medical AI system to be right by grounding the question in a specific clinical context: the automatic classification of plasma cells in digitized bone marrow smears for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Drawing on philosophy of science and research ethics, the paper argues that correctness in medical AI is not a singular property reducible to benchmark performance, but a multi-dimensional concept involving the availability of expertly labeled medical datasets, the explainability and interpretability of model outputs, the clinical meaningfulness of evaluation metrics, and the distribution of accountability in human-AI workflows. As such, the paper develops this argument through four interrelated themes: the instability of ground truth labels, the opacity of overconfident AI, the inadequacy of standard clinical metrics, and the risk of automation bias in time-pressured clinical settings.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
3 of 12 references.
References · 3
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2019Measuring Calibration in Deep Learningcited by 446
- 2019Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labelscited by 413
Built on by
Not cited yet.