ArticleScientific reports2026
An ethics-informed computable audit framework for monitoring misdiagnosis risk in AI-assisted diagnosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic AI can misclassify under distribution shift and subgroup imbalance; governance signals are rarely computable at deploy time. We target deployed diagnostic decision-support systems that perform binary classification and output a continuous risk score (preferably a calibrated probability). The audit layer ingests deploy-time streams including features X, model score S, subgroup tag g, and clinician action a, while outcome labels Y may arrive later via adjudication or follow-up. We define a unit-scaled Misdiagnosis Risk Index (MRI-AI) aggregating shift, fairness, calibration, and human-AI interaction; implement a streaming sentinel with starter bands and stop rules; and log signals and actions in an accountability ledger. A minimal simulation emulates device/site drift and imbalance. Outcomes include deploy-time trigger behavior from label-free indicators and delayed updates of label-dependent metrics (overall/worst-group AUC/FPR, ECE/Brier), as well as trigger rate, top-decile error share, and decision-curve net benefit. Using a controlled, scenario-based synthetic stress-test suite (designed to evaluate the audit/monitoring layer rather than to claim clinical performance of a particular diagnostic model), we report both predictive metrics (overall and worst-group AUC/FPR, ECE, and Brier) and alert-centric endpoints (window-level alert rate, time-to-first-trigger, and persistence). The results show that alert burden remains low under stable conditions and increases in a graded and interpretable manner with shift type and severity, supporting scenario-dependent monitoring and risk-tiered governance actions. Temperature scaling improves calibration while preserving rank-based decision behavior, and subgroup disparities remain explicitly auditable. A computable audit layer-MRI-AI + streaming sentinel + ledger-turns fairness and transparency into actionable controls for diagnostic decision support, enabling auditable monitoring and risk-tiered interventions.
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.