ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Beyond overconfidence: Embedding curiosity and humility for ethical medical AI.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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.
- Engineering framework for curiosity-driven and humble AI in clinical decision support.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- The precision ceiling: information-theoretic accuracy bounds for responsible AI health screening.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary medical AI systems exhibit a critical vulnerability: they deliver confident predictions without mechanisms to express uncertainty or acknowledge limitations, leading to dangerous overreliance in clinical settings. This paper introduces the BODHI (Bridging, Open, Discerning, Humble, Inquiring) framework, a dual-reflective architecture grounded in two essential epistemic virtues: curiosity and humility, as foundational design principles for healthcare AI. Curiosity drives systems to actively explore diagnostic uncertainty, seek additional information when faced with ambiguous presentations, and recognize when training distributions fail to match clinical reality. Humility provides complementary restraint, enabling uncertainty quantification, boundary recognition, and appropriate deference to human expertise. We demonstrate how these virtues function synergistically in a dynamic feedback loop, preventing both reckless exploration and excessive caution while supporting collaborative clinical decision-making. Drawing from psychological theories of curiosity and cross-species evidence of epistemic humility, we argue that these capacities represent fundamental biological design principles essential for systems operating in high-stakes, uncertain environments. The BODHI framework addresses systemic failures in medical AI deployment, from biased training data to institutional workflow pressures, by embedding uncertainty awareness and collaborative restraint into foundational system architecture. Key implementation features include calibrated confidence measures, out-of-distribution detection, curiosity-driven escalation protocols, and transparency mechanisms that adapt to clinical context. Rather than pursuing algorithmic perfection through pure optimization, we advocate for human-AI partnerships that enhance clinical reasoning through mutual accountability and calibrated trust. This approach represents a paradigm shift from overconfident automation toward collaborative systems that embody the wisdom to pause, reflect, and defer when appropriate.
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.