Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807482›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

From model failure to system harm: operationalizing a sociotechnical pathway for healthcare AI safety.

Burhan Sebin, Irem Karaman Sebin

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Burhan Sebin *eMerge Americas, Miami, FL, United States.
Irem Karaman Sebin *Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) is commonly evaluated using measures of discrimination, calibration, sensitivity, specificity, and benchmark accuracy. Although these metrics are necessary, safety ultimately depends on what occurs after an AI output enters a clinical system, whether it is noticed, trusted, verified, acted upon, and propagated through existing workflows and organizational capacities. Evidence from postmarket reports, human-AI studies, drift analyses, and equity audits demonstrates that hazards can arise at multiple points along this pathway, while remaining insufficient to quantify the incidence, attributable severity, or long-term consequences of AI-related harm. We therefore propose a five-stage sociotechnical pathway that traces risk from upstream vulnerability through AI behavior, human-workflow mediation, decision or system effect, and downstream harm. Rather than adding another catalog of governance principles, the framework follows how a specific vulnerability propagates and treats each transition as an auditable control point linked to measurable indicators, accountable actors, escalation criteria, and response actions. Thresholds should be prespecified according to the intended use and local context.

Indexed as

algorithmic biasartificial intelligenceautomation biasclinical decision supportlarge language modelspatient safetysociotechnical systems

Identifiers

PMID42807482
PMCPMC13617058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.