Piloting a Survey-Based Assessment of Transparency and Trustworthiness with Three Medical AI Tools.

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers the potential to support healthcare delivery, but poorly trained or validated algorithms bear risks of harm. Ethical guidelines stated transparency about model development and validation as a requirement for trustworthy AI. Abundant guidance exists to provide transparency through reporting, but poorly reported medical AI tools are common. To close this transparency gap, we developed and piloted a framework to quantify the transparency of medical AI tools with three use cases. Our framework comprises a survey to report on the intended use, training and validation data and processes, ethical considerations, and deployment recommendations. The transparency of each response was scored with either 0, 0.5, or 1 to reflect if the requested information was not, partially, or fully provided. Additionally, we assessed on an analogous three-point scale if the provided responses fulfilled the transparency requirement for a set of trustworthiness criteria from ethical guidelines. The degree of transparency and trustworthiness was calculated on a scale from 0% to 100%. Our assessment of three medical AI use cases pin-pointed reporting gaps and resulted in transparency scores of 67% for two use cases and one with 59%. We report anecdotal evidence that business constraints and limited information from external datasets were major obstacles to providing transparency for the three use cases. The observed transparency gaps also lowered the degree of trustworthiness, indicating compliance gaps with ethical guidelines. All three pilot use cases faced challenges to provide transparency about medical AI tools, but more studies are needed to investigate those in the wider medical AI sector. Applying this framework for an external assessment of transparency may be infeasible if business constraints prevent the disclosure of information. New strategies may be necessary to enable audits of medical AI tools while preserving business secrets.
Competing Interests: None of our team members were involved in the design of any of the reported medical AI use cases or employed by any of the reporting companies. M.B. is employed by Merck Group Pharma, but his involvement in this work was independent of his employment. He consulted the selection of survey questions and trustworthiness requirements from a scientific business administration perspective. M.B. was excluded from assessing the survey responses and had no access to the identities of the participants, their employing companies, and reported information. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.