When the algorithm passes the test but fails the patient

Alex Mirugwe

PLOS Digital Health, 2026, vol. 5, issue 10, 1-4

Abstract: Tens of thousands of AI diagnostic tools have been authorised for clinical diagnosis worldwide, justified primarily by benchmark accuracy (performance on a fixed, curated test dataset), a number that says little about what the tool will do at the bedside. The field rests on three flawed foundations: datasets that do not reflect the populations served, development pipelines that exclude clinicians, and regulatory pathways that mistake on-paper accuracy for evidence of benefit. Closing the gap requires global coordination and the political will to treat clinical validation as a prerequisite rather than an afterthought.

Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001774 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/fi ... 01774&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001774

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001774

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Digital Health from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by digitalhealth ().