의료계에 도입된 AI, 환자에게 실제 도움이 될까?

I don’t need to tell you that AI is everywhere . Or that it is being used, increasingly, in hospitals. Doctors are using AI to help them with notetaking. AI-based tools are trawling through patient records, flagging people who may require certain support or treatments. They are also used to interpret medical exam results and X-rays. A growing number of studies suggest that many of these tools can deliver accurate results. But there’s a bigger question here: Does using them actually translate into better health outcomes for patients? We don’t yet have a good answer. That’s what Jenna Wiens, a computer scientist at the University of Michigan, and Anna Goldenberg of the University of Toronto, argue in a paper published in the journal Nature Medicine this week. Wiens tells me she has spent years investigating how AI might benefit health care. For the first decade of her career she tried to pitch the technology to clinicians. Over the last few years, she says, it’s as though “a switch flipped.” Health-care providers not only appear much more interested in the promise of these technologies, they have also begun rapidly deploying them. The problem is that many providers aren’t rigorously assessing how well they actually work. Take “ambient AI” tools, for example. Also known as AI scribes, they “listen” to conversations between doctors and patients, then transcribe and summarize them. Multiple tools are available, and they are already being widely adopted by health-care providers. A few months ago, a staffer at a major New York medical center who develops AI tools for doctors told me that, anecdotally, medics are “overjoyed” by the technology—it allows them to focus all their attention on their patients during appointments, and it saves them from a lot of time-consuming paperwork. Early studies support these anecdotes and suggest that the tools can reduce clinician burnout. That’s all well and good. But what about patient health outcomes? “[Researchers] have evaluated provider or clinician and patient satisfaction, but not really how these tools are affecting clinical decision-making,” says Wiens. “We just don’t know.” The same holds true for other AI-based technologies used in health-care settings. Some are used to predict patients’ health trajectories, others to recommend treatments. They are designed to make health care more effective and efficient. But even a tool that is “accurate” won’t necessarily improve health outcomes. AI might speed up the interpretation of a chest X-ray , for example. But how much will a doctor rely on its analysis? How will that tool affect the way a doctor interacts with patients or recommends treatment? And ultimately: What will this mean for those patients? The answers to those questions might vary between hospitals or departments and could depend on clinical workflows, says Wiens. They might also differ between doctors at various stages of their careers. Take the AI scribes, as another example. Some research on AI use in education suggests that such tools can impact the way people cognitively process information. Could they affect the way a doctor processes a patient’s information? Will the tools affect the way medical students think about patient data in a way that impacts care? These questions need to be explored, says Wiens. “We like things that save us time, but we have to think about the unintended consequences of this,” she says. In a study published in January 2025 , Paige Nong at the University of Minnesota and her colleagues found that around 65% of US hospitals used AI-assisted predictive tools. Only two-thirds of those hospitals evaluated their accuracy. Even fewer assessed them for bias. The number of hospitals using these tools has probably increased since then, says Wiens. Those hospitals, or entities other than the companies developing the tools, need to evaluate how much they help in specific settings. There’s a possibility that they could leave patients worse off, although it’s more likely that AI tools just aren’t as beneficial as health-care providers might assume they are, says Wiens. “I do believe in the potential of AI to really improve clinical care,” says Wiens, who stresses that she doesn’t want to stop the adoption of AI tools in health care. She just wants more information about how they are affecting people. “I have to believe that in the future it’s not all AI or no AI ,” she says. “It’s somewhere in between.” This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here . Deep Dive Biotechnology and health Inside the stealthy startup that pitched brainless human clones The ultimate plan to live forever is a brand new body. By Antonio Regalado archive page A woman’s uterus has been kept alive outside the body for the first time The team behind the feat plan to study uterine disorders and the early stages of pregnancy—and potentially grow a human fetus. By Jessica Hamzelou archive page This scientist rewarmed and studied pieces of his friend’s cryopreserved brain A gerontologist wanted his preserved brain to be reanimated. Cryopreservation is more likely to be used on organs for transplantation. By Jessica Hamzelou archive page No one’s sure if synthetic mirror life will kill us all Synthetic biologists were tantalized by the idea of making mirror images of microbes. Then things got complicated. By Stephen Ornes archive page Stay connected Illustration by Rose Wong Get the latest updates from MIT Technology Review Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more. Enter your email Privacy Policy Thank you for submitting your email! Explore more newsletters It looks like something went wrong. We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.