Potential Liability for Physicians Using Artificial Intelligence.

By W. Price, Sara Gerke, I. Cohen. 2019

434 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Health Informatics, Pharmacy, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Health Informatics

1. Jessica Morley
2. Luciano Floridi
3. Avishek Choudhury
4. Onur Asan
5. Pranav Rajpurkar
6. Mariarosaria Taddeo
7. Glenn Cohen
8. Timo Minssen

In Pharmacy

1. Glenn Cohen
2. Timo Minssen
3. Sara Gerke
4. Avishek Choudhury
5. Onur Asan

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Mariarosaria Taddeo
2. Glenn Cohen
3. Timo Minssen
4. Sara Gerke
5. Luciano Floridi
6. Emilio Ferrara

Citations in the corpus

• Artificial Intelligence and Human Trust in Healthcare: Focus on Clinicians (2019, background): “condition (irrespective of patient health outcome) [48].”
• Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare (2020, positive): “Thus, to avoid medical malpractice liability, physicians can use it as a confirmatory tool to assist with existing decisionmaking processes as opposed to needing to follow its recommendations out of fear of liability [89].”
• AI in health and medicine (2022, background): “However, if the standard of care shifts so that doctors routinely use AI tools, then there will be a strong medicole-gal incentive for doctors to follow AI recommendations 109 .”
• The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. (2020, methodology): “…as the algorithm in this scenario would be considered a diagnostic support tool—just like a blood test—with no decision making capacity, so it is the HCP's responsibility to act appropriately based on the information provided (Price et al., 2019; Schönberger, 2019; Sullivan and Schweikart, 2019).”