Many of us have wondered this question, but few have data to support an actual argument: what happens legally when AI catches a finding and the radiologist misses it? Apparently, jurors have an opinion on this matter.

This Nature Health brief communication was recently published. If you don’t have access to Nature Communications, the authors have shared a preprint as well.
Participants acting as mock jurors passed judgment on a malpractice scenario involving a missed brain hemorrhage on CT on a stroke case.
The TL;DR on the case: AI flagged the bleed correctly. The radiologist and the final report did not. The patient was catastrophically harmed.
Two variants of the malpractice scenario were compared.
- AI-Human, in which the human reviews an AI output and renders a final report
- Human-AI-Human, in which the expert first reviews the case alone, then reviews AI, and then creates the final output
In both cases, the final diagnosis was incorrect; in both cases, the patient was harmed.
Both scenarios had human in the loop.
The only difference is that the second was set up as an “AI sandwich”: The human expert both began the evaluation without AI, and then had an opportunity to revise the evaluation after AI.
Does it make a difference? What do you think?









