Mitigating patient harm risks: A proposal of requirements for AI in healthcare

With the rise Artificial Intelligence (AI), mitigation strategies may be needed to integrate AI-enabled medical software responsibly, ensuring ethical alignment and patient safety. This study examines how to mitigate the key risks identified by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). For that, we discuss how complementary risk-mitigation requirements may ensure the main aspects of AI in Healthcare: Reliability - Continuous performance evaluation, Continuous usability test, Encryption and use of field-tested libraries, Semantic interoperability -, Transparency - AI passport, eXplainable AI, Data quality assessment, Bias Check -, Traceability - User management, Audit trail, Review of cases-, and Responsibility - Regulation check, Academic use only disclaimer, Clinicians double check -. A survey conducted among 216 Medical ICT professionals (medical doctors, ICT staff and complementary profiles) between March and June 2024 revealed these requirements were perceived positive by all profiles. Responders deemed explainable AI and data quality assessment essential for transparency; audit trail for traceability; and regulatory compliance and clinician double check for responsibility. Clinicians rated the following requirements more relevant (p < 0.05) than technicians: continuous performance assessment, usability testing, encryption, AI passport, retrospective case review, and academic use check. Additionally, users found the AI passport more relevant for transparency than decision-makers (p < 0.05). We trust that this proposal can serve as a starting point to endow the future AI systems in medical practice with requirements to ensure their ethical deployment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Published
2025-05-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103168
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.93
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mitigating patient harm risks: A proposal of requirements for AI in healthcare

Alejandro Pazos, Juan M. García‐Gómez, Felipe Pereira Mesquita, Ascensión Doñate-Martínez et al.
6 citations
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
3.93
article

Mitigating patient harm risks: A proposal of requirements for AI in healthcare

Alejandro Pazos, Juan M. García‐Gómez, Felipe Pereira Mesquita, Ascensión Doñate-Martínez, José Carlos de Bartolomé Cenzano, Vicent Blanes-Selva, Carlos Romero
article en
6 citations

Abstract

With the rise Artificial Intelligence (AI), mitigation strategies may be needed to integrate AI-enabled medical software responsibly, ensuring ethical alignment and patient safety. This study examines how to mitigate the key risks identified by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). For that, we discuss how complementary risk-mitigation requirements may ensure the main aspects of AI in Healthcare: Reliability - Continuous performance evaluation, Continuous usability test, Encryption and use of field-tested libraries, Semantic interoperability -, Transparency - AI passport, eXplainable AI, Data quality assessment, Bias Check -, Traceability - User management, Audit trail, Review of cases-, and Responsibility - Regulation check, Academic use only disclaimer, Clinicians double check -. A survey conducted among 216 Medical ICT professionals (medical doctors, ICT staff and complementary profiles) between March and June 2024 revealed these requirements were perceived positive by all profiles. Responders deemed explainable AI and data quality assessment essential for transparency; audit trail for traceability; and regulatory compliance and clinician double check for responsibility. Clinicians rated the following requirements more relevant (p < 0.05) than technicians: continuous performance assessment, usability testing, encryption, AI passport, retrospective case review, and academic use check. Additionally, users found the AI passport more relevant for transparency than decision-makers (p < 0.05). We trust that this proposal can serve as a starting point to endow the future AI systems in medical practice with requirements to ensure their ethical deployment.

Artificial Intelligence in MedicineVol. 167
Fundación Centro Tecnológico de la Información y la Comunicación (ES), Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (ES), Centro Tecnológico de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación en tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (TIC) (ES), Fundação Hospitalar de Hematologia e Hemoterapia do Amazonas (BR), Universitat Politècnica de València (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
3.93
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.