Archive
Three suits filed this spring turn on whether a clinician who followed a model's recommendation, or overrode it, met the standard of care.
Programs with identical monitoring technology report very different safety records. The difference is who is allowed to act on an alert.
A methodological review finds that fewer than one in five published evaluations measured a patient outcome rather than a model metric.
A security review found that standard de-identification left enough structure for a general purpose model to link records across datasets.
An experiment found that adding plausible explanations raised agreement with the model regardless of whether the model was right.
Health systems that built their own are increasingly buying instead, and the ones still building are unusually specific about why.
Generated summaries are complete and long. Receiving clinicians report missing the one sentence that used to matter.
Payment pathways exist for a handful of imaging tools and almost nothing else, and the gap is shaping what gets built.
A tool that simply surfaces what is already in the chart has better engagement than every predictive model the system has deployed.
Nearly two-thirds of surveyed systems now run subgroup performance audits. Fewer than a fifth have ever changed a deployed model because of one.
Interaction screening, dose checking and formulary substitution have quietly become the most reliable deployments in the hospital.
Legal teams are separating generated documentation from generated inference, and asking clinicians to keep the second one out of the chart.