Skip to content

AI Morbidity and Mortality: A Framework for Clinical AI Failure Review

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 10 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M) is intended to complement, rather than replace, model monitoring, patient safety reporting, and regulatory oversight by converting individual AI-in-workflow failures into actionable institutional learning.

Abstract

Clinical artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in real-world care, yet existing safety mechanisms are poorly suited to reconstructing and learning from individual AI-related errors and near-misses. Aggregate model monitoring can identify performance changes, and traditional patient safety reporting can capture adverse events, but neither is designed to explain how risk emerges across the interaction among AI systems, clinicians, workflows, and institutional controls. We propose AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M), a structured, blameless framework for case-based review of clinical AI failures. The framework combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation and investigator-level reconstruction, tool-in-loop attribution, and corrective-action tracking. Each event is classified across four linked dimensions: Trigger - Mechanism - Clinical Pathway - Corrective Action, separating the condition that exposed a vulnerability from the process that produced risk, its consequence for care, and the remediation assigned. We demonstrate the framework using five illustrative outpatient medication and clinical decision-support cases; two clinician reviewers independently applied all four classification axes and reached agreement across all 20 axis-level classifications. AI M&M is intended to complement, rather than replace, model monitoring, patient safety reporting, and regulatory oversight by converting individual AI-in-workflow failures into actionable institutional learning. Prospective evaluation across institutions, AI systems, and clinical settings is needed.

View source

Similar papers

Review Open access Jul 2026

From Algorithm to Bedside: A Clinician's Framework for AI in Practice

This article proposes seven questions that clinicians can run through to evaluate any clinical AI tool in the time it takes to read an abstract, alongside a traffic-light schema for matching oversight to risk and a short list of demands clinicians should make of vendors and institutions.

Alaa Abdelqader, M. Alkhateeb, Abdullah Al-Marrawi et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

State of clinical AI in 2026

Abstract Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced rapidly, with frontier large language models now matching or exceeding physician performance on simulated diagnostic reasoning and clinical decision-support tasks. Yet adoption has outpaced the evidence base: fewer than 5% of cleared U.S. Food and Drug Adminis...

J. Worth, Anastasia Perez, David Wu et al. · 1 citation
Review Open access Sep 2026

Artificial intelligence in clinical trials—state of the evidence, gaps, and next steps

This manuscript defines AI-as-intervention as AI whose output is itself part of the assigned clinical intervention being evaluated for its effect on participant care or outcomes, and AI-for-trial-operations as AI used to support trial design, conduct, or analysis without itself constituting the treatment under study.

A. Armoundas, C. Tarabanis, J. Loscalzo · 0 citations
#large language models Review Open access Sep 2026

Advances, Risks, And Implementation Challenges of Artificial Intelligence as A Force Multiplier for Clinical Decision Making and Health System Efficiency

The central argument is that the value of clinical artificial intelligence is determined less by model accuracy in isolation than by the quality of the sociotechnical system into which a model is placed: governance, workflow integration, monitoring, and the preservation of meaningful human oversight.

Lucky Ilodigwe · 1 citation
#software testing Review Sep 2026

Agentic AI in Medicine: Challenges for Responsible Development and the Case for Clinical Testing Harnesses.

It is argued that each of the four challenges facing responsible development is addressed by a clinical testing harness: a structured evaluation environment comprising scenario libraries built from clinical edge cases, full-trajectory observability, explicit escalation testing, and staged evidence thresholds tied to sc...

E. Waisberg, Joseph W. Guarnieri · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

From Algorithmic Performance to Hospital Value: A Narrative Review of Clinical Artificial Intelligence

Clinical artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated performance across diagnostic, predictive, monitoring, and decision-support tasks, yet hospital adoption depends on whether that capability can produce sustainable value under local conditions. Informed by structured searches of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus, supplemen...

Christina Morfaki · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.