Module 4 · AI in Healthcare Essentials
How to judge an AI claim
After this module you can take any AI claim apart: what is claimed, on what evidence, for whom, and what it would actually change.
Concept
Claim → Evidence → Fit → Impact
Four questions, always in this order. Skipping to the last one is how organisations buy impressive tools that change nothing.
- 01
Claim
What exactly is asserted — for which task, compared with what, and for which patients?
- 02
Evidence
Where does the number come from: a demo, a retrospective dataset, or a prospective evaluation?
- 03
Fit
Does the study population, setting and pathway resemble yours?
- 04
Impact
What changes in the workflow, who benefits, and who absorbs the extra work or risk?
In healthcare
Most weak claims collapse at step one. 'Our AI is 95% accurate' does not say accurate at what, measured against whom, or compared with the clinician doing it today.
Sources & evidence · 3 sources
Consensus guidance from WHO, international reporting standards and peer-reviewed literature. Healthcare examples in this module are synthetic teaching cases.
Content reviewed: September 2026. Publication dates of the individual sources are shown in each citation.
Collins GS, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385:e078378. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378
What a prediction-model report should contain, including how outcomes, predictors and validation are described. A reporting standard: following it makes evidence legible, it does not make a model safe or effective.
Open sourceVasey B, et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nature Medicine. 2022;28:924–933. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9
Reporting standard for the early clinical evaluation of AI decision support in live use — the stage where model output meets clinicians, workflow and human factors. It does not replace comparative effectiveness evidence.
Open sourceLekadir K, et al. FUTURE-AI: international consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare. BMJ. 2025;388:e081554. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081554
A consensus guideline covering fairness, universality, traceability, usability, robustness and explainability across the AI lifecycle. Consensus guidance, not evidence that any specific tool is trustworthy.
Open source