Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41858846›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Leveraging imperfection with MEDLEY: a multi-model approach harnessing bias in medical AI.

Farhad Abtahi, Mehdi Astaraki, Fernando Seoane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Farhad AbtahiDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mehdi AstarakiDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fernando SeoaneDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bias in medical artificial intelligence is conventionally viewed as a defect that requires elimination. However, human reasoning inherently incorporates biases shaped by education, culture, and experience, suggesting their presence may be inevitable and potentially valuable. We propose MEDLEY (Medical Ensemble Diagnostic system with Leveraged diversitY), a conceptual framework that orchestrates multiple AI models while preserving their diverse outputs rather than collapsing them into a consensus. Unlike traditional approaches that suppress disagreement, MEDLEY documents model-specific biases as potential strengths and treats hallucinations as provisional hypotheses for clinician verification. A proof-of-concept demonstrator for differential diagnosis was developed using over 30 large language models, preserving both consensus and minority views, rendering diagnostic uncertainty and latent biases transparent to support clinical oversight. While not yet a validated clinical tool, the demonstration illustrates how structured diversity can enhance medical reasoning under the supervision of clinicians. By reframing AI imperfection as a resource, MEDLEY offers a paradigm shift that opens new regulatory, ethical, and innovation pathways for developing trustworthy medical AI systems.

Indexed as

AI regulation and governancebias and fairness in AIclinical decision support systemsdiagnostic uncertaintyhallucination in large language modelshuman-in-the-loop AImedical artificial intelligencemulti-model and ensemble learning

Identifiers

PMID41858846
PMCPMC12997180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.