ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2021
Co-designing diagnosis: Towards a responsible integration of Machine Learning decision-support systems in medical diagnostics.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frameworks encompassing intersectional perspective of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Scoping review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Situating governance and regulatory concerns for generative artificial intelligence and large language models in medical education.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Description and Analysis of Horse Swimming Strategies in a U-Shaped Pool.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Second opinion machine learning for fast-track pathway assignment in hip and knee replacement surgery: the use of patient-reported outcome measures.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Building trust in artificial intelligence and new technologies in mental health.Evidence-based mental health · 2022Article
- Co-designing diagnosis: Towards a responsible integration of Machine Learning decision-support systems in medical diagnostics.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Review
- Humans, machines and decisions: Clinical reasoning in the age of artificial intelligence, evidence-based medicine and Covid-19.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleThis paper aims to show how the focus on eradicating bias from Machine Learning decision-support systems in medical diagnosis diverts attention from the hermeneutic nature of medical decision-making and the productive role of bias. We want to show how an introduction of Machine Learning systems alters the diagnostic process. Reviewing the negative conception of bias and incorporating the mediating role of Machine Learning systems in the medical diagnosis are essential for an encompassing, critical and informed medical decision-making.
methodsThis paper presents a philosophical analysis, employing the conceptual frameworks of hermeneutics and technological mediation, while drawing on the case of Machine Learning algorithms assisting doctors in diagnosis. This paper unravels the non-neutral role of algorithms in the doctor's decision-making and points to the dialogical nature of interaction not only with the patients but also with the technologies that co-shape the diagnosis.
findingsFollowing the hermeneutical model of medical diagnosis, we review the notion of bias to show how it is an inalienable and productive part of diagnosis. We show how Machine Learning biases join the human ones to actively shape the diagnostic process, simultaneously expanding and narrowing medical attention, highlighting certain aspects, while disclosing others, thus mediating medical perceptions and actions. Based on that, we demonstrate how doctors can take Machine Learning systems on board for an enhanced medical diagnosis, while being aware of their non-neutral role.
conclusionsWe show that Machine Learning systems join doctors and patients in co-designing a triad of medical diagnosis. We highlight that it is imperative to examine the hermeneutic role of the Machine Learning systems. Additionally, we suggest including not only the patient, but also colleagues to ensure an encompassing diagnostic process, to respect its inherently hermeneutic nature and to work productively with the existing human and machine biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.