The sudden outbreak and uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 disease is one of the most important global problems today. In a short period of time, it has led to the development of many deep neural network models for COVID-19 detection with modules for explainability. In this work, we carry out a systematic analysis of various aspects of proposed models. Our analysis revealed numerous mistakes made at different stages of data acquisition, model development, and explanation construction. In this work, we overview the approaches proposed in the surveyed Machine Learning articles and indicate typical errors emerging from the lack of deep understanding of the radiography domain. We present the perspective of both: experts in the field - radiologists and deep learning engineers dealing with model explanations. The final result is a proposed checklist with the minimum conditions to be met by a reliable COVID-19 diagnostic model.

Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health care has become a crucial element in the digital transformation of health systems worldwide. Despite the potential benefits across diverse medical domains, a significant barrier to the successful adoption of AI systems in health care applications remains the prevailing low user trust in these technologies. Crucially, this challenge is exacerbated by the lack of consensus among experts from different disciplines on the definition of trust in AI within the health care sector. Objective: We aimed to provide the first consensus-based analysis of trust in AI in health care based on an interdisciplinary panel of experts from different domains. Our findings can be used to address the problem of defining trust in AI in health care applications, fostering the discussion of concrete real-world health care scenarios in which humans interact with AI systems explicitly. Methods: We used a combination of framework analysis and a 3-step consensus process involving 18 international experts from the fields of computer science, medicine, philosophy of technology, ethics, and social sciences. Our process consisted of a synchronous phase during an expert workshop where we discussed the notion of trust in AI in health care applications, defined an initial framework of important elements of trust to guide our analysis, and agreed on 5 case studies. This was followed by a 2-step iterative, asynchronous process in which the authors further developed, discussed, and refined notions of trust with respect to these specific cases. Results: Our consensus process identified key contextual factors of trust, namely, an AI system’s environment, the actors involved, and framing factors, and analyzed causes and effects of trust in AI in health care. Our findings revealed that certain factors were applicable across all discussed cases yet also pointed to the need for a fine-grained, multidisciplinary analysis bridging human-centered and technology-centered approaches. While regulatory boundaries and technological design features are critical to successful AI implementation in health care, ultimately, communication and positive lived experiences with AI systems will be at the forefront of user trust. Our expert consensus allowed us to formulate concrete recommendations for future research on trust in AI in health care applications. Conclusions: This paper advocates for a more refined and nuanced conceptual understanding of trust in the context of AI in health care. By synthesizing insights into commonalities and differences among specific case studies, this paper establishes a foundational basis for future debates and discussions on trusting AI in health care.

Gastrointestinal (GI) failure can be both a cause of sepsis and a consequence of the systemic pro-inflammatory response in sepsis. Changes in biomarkers of enterocyte damage, citrulline and I-FABP (intestinal fatty acid binding protein), may indicate altered intestinal permeability and damage. The study group consisted of patients with sepsis (N = 28) and septic shock (N = 30); the control group included patients without infection (N = 10). Blood samples were collected for citrulline and I-FABP and a 4-point AGI score (acute GI injury score) was calculated to monitor GI function on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Citrulline concentrations in the study group were lower than in the control. Lower values were also noted in septic patients with shock when compared to the non-shock group throughout the study period. I-FABP was higher in the septic shock group than in the sepsis group only on days 1 and 3. Citrulline was lower in patients with GI failure (AGI III) when compared to AGI I/II, reaching significance on days 7 (p = 0.034) and 10 (p = 0.015); moreover, a higher AGI score was associated with an increased 28 day mortality (p = 0.038). The results indicate that citrulline measurements, along with the AGI assessment, have clinical potential in monitoring GI function and integrity in sepsis.

BACKGROUND The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into health care has become a crucial element in the digital transformation of health systems worldwide. Despite the potential benefits across diverse medical domains, a significant barrier to the successful adoption of AI systems in health care applications remains the prevailing low user trust in these technologies. Crucially, this challenge is exacerbated by the lack of consensus among experts from different disciplines on the definition of trust in AI within the health care sector. OBJECTIVE We aimed to provide the first consensus-based analysis of trust in AI in health care based on an interdisciplinary panel of experts from different domains. Our findings can be used to address the problem of defining trust in AI in health care applications, fostering the discussion of concrete real-world health care scenarios in which humans interact with AI systems explicitly. METHODS We used a combination of framework analysis and a 3-step consensus process involving 18 international experts from the fields of computer science, medicine, philosophy of technology, ethics, and social sciences. Our process consisted of a synchronous phase during an expert workshop where we discussed the notion of trust in AI in health care applications, defined an initial framework of important elements of trust to guide our analysis, and agreed on 5 case studies. This was followed by a 2-step iterative, asynchronous process in which the authors further developed, discussed, and refined notions of trust with respect to these specific cases. RESULTS Our consensus process identified key contextual factors of trust, namely, an AI system’s environment, the actors involved, and framing factors, and analyzed causes and effects of trust in AI in health care. Our findings revealed that certain factors were applicable across all discussed cases yet also pointed to the need for a fine-grained, multidisciplinary analysis bridging human-centered and technology-centered approaches. While regulatory boundaries and technological design features are critical to successful AI implementation in health care, ultimately, communication and positive lived experiences with AI systems will be at the forefront of user trust. Our expert consensus allowed us to formulate concrete recommendations for future research on trust in AI in health care applications. CONCLUSIONS This paper advocates for a more refined and nuanced conceptual understanding of trust in the context of AI in health care. By synthesizing insights into commonalities and differences among specific case studies, this paper establishes a foundational basis for future debates and discussions on trusting AI in health care.