1
00:00:00,050 --> 00:00:06,170
Case study harms matrix mitigating risks in AI driven cancer diagnostics at MedTech innovations, the

2
00:00:06,170 --> 00:00:11,960
deployment of AI in health care holds the promise of revolutionizing medical diagnostics and treatment.

3
00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:17,660
But without a thorough risk assessment framework, it could unleash a cascade of unintended harms.

4
00:00:17,660 --> 00:00:24,350
This case study explores the development and application of a harms matrix in a healthcare AI project

5
00:00:24,350 --> 00:00:28,940
led by Doctor Emily Carter and her interdisciplinary team at MedTech innovations.

6
00:00:31,010 --> 00:00:36,980
Doctor Carter's team was tasked with developing an AI driven diagnostic tool designed to assist physicians

7
00:00:36,980 --> 00:00:40,040
in detecting early signs of cancer from medical imaging.

8
00:00:40,550 --> 00:00:46,130
The promise of this technology was immense, offering faster, more accurate diagnoses and potentially

9
00:00:46,130 --> 00:00:47,630
saving countless lives.

10
00:00:48,290 --> 00:00:51,680
However, the potential risks were equally significant.

11
00:00:53,150 --> 00:00:58,400
Before even beginning the technical development, the team initiated the process of constructing a harms

12
00:00:58,400 --> 00:00:59,240
matrix.

13
00:00:59,420 --> 00:01:05,690
This approach, grounded in responsible AI governance, involved identifying the diverse types of harms

14
00:01:05,690 --> 00:01:08,870
that could arise from the deployment of their AI system.

15
00:01:09,410 --> 00:01:15,890
The team categorized potential harms into physical, psychological, economic, social, and environmental

16
00:01:15,890 --> 00:01:16,790
categories.

17
00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:21,740
For example, what physical harm could occur if the system misdiagnosed a patient?

18
00:01:22,100 --> 00:01:27,710
How might psychological harm manifest if patients lost trust in the confidentiality of their medical

19
00:01:27,710 --> 00:01:28,310
data?

20
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:34,430
The team recognized the importance of considering both direct and indirect harms and the short and long

21
00:01:34,460 --> 00:01:35,960
term consequences.

22
00:01:37,340 --> 00:01:44,090
Quantifying and qualifying these harms required a deep dive into the operational context of the AI system

23
00:01:44,090 --> 00:01:46,700
and its interaction with various stakeholders.

24
00:01:47,330 --> 00:01:49,460
Stakeholder analysis was crucial.

25
00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:56,300
Doctor Carter's team identified primary stakeholders such as patients, health care providers, hospital

26
00:01:56,300 --> 00:01:58,880
administrators, and regulatory bodies.

27
00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:03,650
They also considered secondary stakeholders like insurance companies and the broader community.

28
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:07,730
Would patients experience different risks compared to health care providers?

29
00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:14,090
Could economic harms, such as increased health care costs or job displacement for radiologists be quantified

30
00:02:14,090 --> 00:02:14,990
accurately?

31
00:02:16,610 --> 00:02:22,670
Following the identification of potential harms, the team moved to evaluate their likelihood and severity.

32
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:28,790
For instance, what was the probability of the AI system misdiagnosing a patient and how severe would

33
00:02:28,790 --> 00:02:30,140
the consequences be?

34
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:36,860
They sought input from domain experts, analyzed historical data, and used scenario modeling to assess

35
00:02:36,860 --> 00:02:37,790
these risks.

36
00:02:37,820 --> 00:02:44,000
A low probability of misdiagnosis might still warrant significant concern if the consequences included

37
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:47,570
delayed cancer treatment or unnecessary procedures.

38
00:02:48,590 --> 00:02:53,330
To systematically organize their findings, the team constructed a harms matrix.

39
00:02:53,870 --> 00:03:00,170
This matrix listed potential harms along one axis and assigned likelihood and severity ratings along

40
00:03:00,170 --> 00:03:00,830
the other.

41
00:03:01,730 --> 00:03:08,210
Each cell in the matrix provided a visual representation of the risk landscape, facilitating prioritization.

42
00:03:08,570 --> 00:03:13,850
For instance, physical harms with high likelihood and high severity were flagged for urgent attention,

43
00:03:13,850 --> 00:03:17,240
while those with lower likelihood and severity were monitored.

44
00:03:18,530 --> 00:03:23,990
The harms matrix is construction laid the groundwork for developing mitigation strategies.

45
00:03:24,020 --> 00:03:29,270
These strategies aim to either reduce the likelihood or severity of identified harms.

46
00:03:29,570 --> 00:03:34,550
What technical solutions could be implemented to improve the AI systems accuracy?

47
00:03:35,120 --> 00:03:40,850
How could organizational measures like ethical guidelines or regular audits help mitigate risks?

48
00:03:40,850 --> 00:03:45,920
For instance, to address the psychological harm of breached patient confidentiality?

49
00:03:45,950 --> 00:03:50,480
The team proposed robust data encryption and strict access controls.

50
00:03:51,110 --> 00:03:56,670
An illustrative example was the potential bias in the AI systems diagnostic Capabilities.

51
00:03:57,090 --> 00:04:02,640
The team recognized that if the AI was trained predominantly on data from one demographic group, it

52
00:04:02,640 --> 00:04:06,660
might not perform as well on other groups, leading to disparities in care.

53
00:04:07,260 --> 00:04:12,420
To mitigate this, they implemented bias detection and correction tools and diversified the training

54
00:04:12,420 --> 00:04:18,420
data would involving human reviewers in the decision making process further reduce the risk?

55
00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:26,490
The real world application of the harms matrix became evident when law enforcement agencies began deploying

56
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:28,440
facial recognition technology.

57
00:04:29,130 --> 00:04:32,790
Doctor Carter's team drew parallels to their health care project.

58
00:04:33,090 --> 00:04:39,420
How could privacy violations and misidentification in facial recognition technology inform their approach

59
00:04:39,420 --> 00:04:42,300
to mitigating risks in their diagnostic tool?

60
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:49,200
They prioritized privacy concerns and devise strategies such as anonymizing patient data to ensure compliance

61
00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:50,730
with ethical standards.

62
00:04:51,870 --> 00:04:56,370
Empirical research reinforced the importance of constructing a harms matrix.

63
00:04:56,550 --> 00:05:03,300
A study by Binns highlighted the social harm caused by biased AI systems in criminal justice, underscoring

64
00:05:03,300 --> 00:05:05,790
the need for comprehensive risk assessments.

65
00:05:05,820 --> 00:05:07,920
Similarly, Middlestadt et al.

66
00:05:07,950 --> 00:05:13,800
Emphasized the ethical implications of AI technologies and the necessity of frameworks like the harms

67
00:05:13,800 --> 00:05:16,530
matrix to navigate these complex issues.

68
00:05:16,950 --> 00:05:22,440
How could these findings be integrated into the team's approach to developing their diagnostic tool?

69
00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:27,390
Collaboration across interdisciplinary teams proved essential.

70
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:34,410
Doctor Carter included AI developers, ethicists, legal experts and representatives from affected communities

71
00:05:34,410 --> 00:05:35,370
in the project.

72
00:05:35,700 --> 00:05:42,030
The diverse perspectives ensured a holistic understanding of potential harms and robust mitigation strategies.

73
00:05:42,060 --> 00:05:48,810
For instance, ethicists provided insights into the moral implications of AI decisions, while legal

74
00:05:48,810 --> 00:05:51,360
experts ensured compliance with regulations.

75
00:05:51,390 --> 00:05:56,720
Could this collaborative model be applied to other AI projects to enhance risk assessment.

76
00:05:57,920 --> 00:06:03,140
The dynamic nature of AI technologies necessitated continuous updates to the harms matrix.

77
00:06:03,530 --> 00:06:10,040
As new data emerged and the AI system evolved, so too did the potential harms and associated risks.

78
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:15,770
Continuous monitoring and iterative assessments were essential to maintaining an up to date harms matrix.

79
00:06:16,400 --> 00:06:20,720
How could the team ensure their mitigation strategies remained effective over time?

80
00:06:21,260 --> 00:06:26,630
They established a routine review process and utilized real time data to inform updates.

81
00:06:28,310 --> 00:06:33,650
Integration of the harms matrix into the broader AI governance framework was also critical.

82
00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:39,410
Aligning the matrix with organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and industry best practices

83
00:06:39,410 --> 00:06:41,840
ensured comprehensive risk management.

84
00:06:42,230 --> 00:06:48,830
The European Union's AI act proposed a risk based approach to AI regulation, where high risk AI systems

85
00:06:48,830 --> 00:06:50,690
faced stringent requirements.

86
00:06:51,200 --> 00:06:57,120
Could incorporating the harms matrix into compliance processes help meet these regulatory standards

87
00:06:57,120 --> 00:07:01,110
and demonstrate a commitment to responsible AI practices.

88
00:07:02,370 --> 00:07:07,380
Statistics and empirical evidence further validated the utility of the harms matrix.

89
00:07:07,680 --> 00:07:10,770
According to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute.

90
00:07:10,770 --> 00:07:11,760
Organizations.

91
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:17,970
Managing AI risks through structured frameworks like the harms matrix were more likely to achieve successful

92
00:07:18,000 --> 00:07:21,000
AI deployments and build stakeholder trust.

93
00:07:21,510 --> 00:07:27,900
The report also noted that 30% of surveyed companies experienced significant AI related incidents due

94
00:07:27,900 --> 00:07:29,880
to inadequate risk management.

95
00:07:30,330 --> 00:07:35,820
How could Doctor Greg Carter's team leverage this evidence to enhance their risk assessment practices?

96
00:07:37,290 --> 00:07:43,560
In conclusion, constructing a harms matrix for AI risk assessment is a fundamental practice for ensuring

97
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:46,440
responsible AI deployment in the health care sector.

98
00:07:47,220 --> 00:07:53,380
The process provides a structured and systematic approach to identifying, evaluating, and mitigating

99
00:07:53,380 --> 00:08:00,400
potential harms by involving interdisciplinary teams, continuously updating the matrix and integrating

100
00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:06,640
it into the broader governance framework, organizations can navigate the complexities of AI risks and

101
00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:09,520
build trustworthy and effective AI systems.

102
00:08:10,180 --> 00:08:15,280
The empirical evidence and case studies underscore the significance of this practice, making it an

103
00:08:15,280 --> 00:08:20,980
indispensable tool for AI professionals and organizations committed to responsible AI governance.

104
00:08:22,480 --> 00:08:27,880
The thoughtful analysis and solutions derived from this case study illustrate the practical application

105
00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:33,280
of constructing a harms matrix involving diverse stakeholders and continuously adapting.

106
00:08:33,280 --> 00:08:40,150
The framework ensures that AI projects remain aligned with ethical standards and regulatory requirements.

107
00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:47,260
By proactively managing risks, organizations can harness the transformative potential of AI while safeguarding

108
00:08:47,260 --> 00:08:49,270
against unintended consequences.