BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the legal landscape of radiology. Results from a previous experiment suggested that providing AI error rates can reduce perceived radiologist culpability, as judged by mock jury members (4). The current study advances this work by examining whether the radiologists behavior also impacts perceptions of liability. Methods. Participants (n=282) read about a hypothetical malpractice case where a 50-year-old who visited the Emergency Department with acute neurological symptoms received a brain CT scan to determine if bleeding was present. An AI system was used by the radiologist who interpreted imaging. The AI system correctly flagged the case as abnormal. Nonetheless, the radiologist concluded no evidence of bleeding, and the blood-thinner t-PA was administered. Participants were randomly assigned to either a 1.) single-read condition, where the radiologist interpreted the CT once after seeing AI feedback, or 2.) a double-read condition, where the radiologist interpreted the CT twice, first without AI and then with AI feedback. Participants were then told the patient suffered irreversible brain damage due to the missed brain bleed, resulting in the patient (plaintiff) suing the radiologist (defendant). Participants indicated whether the radiologist met their duty of care to the patient (yes/no). Results. Hypothetical jurors were more likely to side with the plaintiff in the single-read condition (106/142, 74.7%) than in the double-read condition (74/140, 52.9%), p=0.0002. Conclusion. This suggests that the penalty for disagreeing with correct AI can be mitigated when images are interpreted twice, or at least if a radiologist gives an interpretation before AI is used.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare, but its benefits are not reaching all patients equally. Children remain overlooked with only 17% of FDA-approved medical AI devices labeled for pediatric use. In this work, we demonstrate that this exclusion may stem from a fundamental data gap. Our systematic review of 181 public medical imaging datasets reveals that children represent just under 1% of available data, while the majority of machine learning imaging conference papers we surveyed utilized publicly available data for methods development. Much like systematic biases of other kinds in model development, past studies have demonstrated the manner in which pediatric representation in data used for models intended for the pediatric population is essential for model performance in that population. We add to these findings, showing that adult-trained chest radiograph models exhibit significant age bias when applied to pediatric populations, with higher false positive rates in younger children. This work underscores the urgent need for increased pediatric representation in publicly accessible medical datasets. We provide actionable recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and data curators to address this age equity gap and ensure AI benefits patients of all ages. 1-2 sentence summaryOur analysis reveals a critical healthcare age disparity: children represent less than 1% of public medical imaging datasets. This gap in representation leads to biased predictions across medical image foundation models, with the youngest patients facing the highest risk of misdiagnosis.