ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics
Should Physicians Take the Rap? Normative Analysis of Clinician Perspectives on Responsible Use of 'Black Box' AI Tools.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Diagnosis and Anticipation of Future Treatment in Pediatric Peripelvic Infections: The Role of Multisurgeon Review and Implications for Future Machine Learning Algorithms.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Stakeholder Criteria for Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer Perception Tools in Health Care: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing interest in deploying artificial intelligence tools in clinical contexts has raised several ethical questions of both normative and empirical interest. One such question in the literature is whether "responsibility gaps" (r-gaps) are created when clinicians utilize or rely on such tools for providing care, and if so, what to do about them. These gaps are particularly likely to arise when using opaque, "black box" AI tools. Compared to normative and legal analysis of AI-generated responsibility gaps in health care, little is known, empirically, about health care providers views on this issue. The present study examines clinician perspectives on this issue in the context of black box AI decisional support systems (BBAI-DSS) in advanced heart failure.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 clinicians (14 cardiologists and 6 LVAD nurse coordinators). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed for salient themes. All study procedures were approved by local IRB.
resultsWe found that
conclusionClinicians varied in their view about the existence of r-gaps but were united in their ascriptions of physician responsibility for the use of BBAI-DSS in clinical care. It was unclear at times whether these were descriptive or normative judgments (i.e., is it merely inevitable physicians will be responsible, or is it morally appropriate that they be held responsible?) or both. We discuss the likely normative inadequacy of such a conception of physician responsibility for BBAI tool use.
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.