Health-care AI is here. We don’t know if it actually helps patients.


But even a tool that is “accurate” won’t necessarily improve health outcomes. AI might speed up the interpretation of a chest X-ray, for example. But how much will a doctor rely on its analysis? How will that tool affect the way a doctor interacts with patients or recommends treatment? And ultimately: What will this mean for those patients?

The answers to those questions might vary between hospitals or departments and could depend on clinical workflows, says Wiens. They might also differ between doctors at various stages of their careers.

Take the AI scribes, as another example. Some research on AI use in education suggests that such tools can impact the way people cognitively process information. Could they affect the way a doctor processes a patient’s information? Will the tools affect the way medical students think about patient data in a way that impacts care? These questions need to be explored, says Wiens. “We like things that save us time, but we have to think about the unintended consequences of this,” she says.

In a study published in January 2025, Paige Nong at the University of Minnesota and her colleagues found that around 65% of US hospitals used AI-assisted predictive tools. Only two-thirds of those hospitals evaluated their accuracy. Even fewer assessed them for bias.

The number of hospitals using these tools has probably increased since then, says Wiens. Those hospitals, or entities other than the companies developing the tools, need to evaluate how much they help in specific settings. There’s a possibility that they could leave patients worse off, although it’s more likely that AI tools just aren’t as beneficial as health-care providers might assume they are, says Wiens.

“I do believe in the potential of AI to really improve clinical care,” says Wiens, who stresses that she doesn’t want to stop the adoption of AI tools in health care. She just wants more information about how they are affecting people. “I have to believe that in the future it’s not all AI or no AI,” she says. “It’s somewhere in between.”

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
 



Source link

  • Related Posts

    ‘Apex’ Review: Charlize Theron Netflix Thriller Avoids Rock Bottom, but Barely

    Apex, a new survival thriller from director Baltasar Kormákur, debuts on Netflix Friday. The film stars Charlize Theron as Sasha, a grief-stricken woman who, after a rather predictable accident on…

    I don’t think Gwyneth Paltrow knows what a peptide is

    This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent every Friday from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they’re going to change…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    DOJ expected to drop criminal probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell amid pressure from senators: Sources

    DOJ expected to drop criminal probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell amid pressure from senators: Sources

    ‘Apex’ Review: Charlize Theron Netflix Thriller Avoids Rock Bottom, but Barely

    ‘Apex’ Review: Charlize Theron Netflix Thriller Avoids Rock Bottom, but Barely

    Trump and China vie for influence in Latin America

    Announcement of new diplomatic appointment

    Companies turn to temporary hires amid reluctance to commit to full-timers

    Companies turn to temporary hires amid reluctance to commit to full-timers

    Berlin culture minister resigns over irregular distribution of funds to fight antisemitism | Germany

    Berlin culture minister resigns over irregular distribution of funds to fight antisemitism | Germany