Roberto V. Zicari

Dennis Vetter, Jesmin Jahan Tithi, Magnus Westerlund et al.

Assessing the trustworthiness of artificial intelligence systems requires knowledge from many different disciplines. These disciplines do not necessarily share concepts between them and might use words with different meanings, or even use the same words differently. Additionally, experts from different disciplines might not be aware of specialized terms readily used in other disciplines. Therefore, a core challenge of the assessment process is to identify when experts from different disciplines talk about the same problem but use different terminologies. In other words, the problem is to group problem descriptions (a.k.a. issues) with the same semantic meaning but described using slightly different terminologies. In this work, we show how we employed recent advances in natural language processing, namely sentence embeddings and semantic textual similarity, to support this identification process and to bridge communication gaps in interdisciplinary teams of experts assessing the trustworthiness of an artificial intelligence system used in healthcare.

Ralf Beuthan, Megan Coffee, Heejin Kim et al.

The polygenic risk scores (PRS) have emerged as an important methodology for quantifying genetic predisposition to complex traits and clinical disease. Significant progress has been made in applying PRS to conditions such as obesity, cancer, and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Studies have demonstrated that PRS can effectively identify individuals at high risk, thereby enabling early screening, personalized treatment, and targeted interventions for diseases with a genetic predisposition. One current limitation of PRS, however, is the lack of interpretability tools. To address this problem for T2DM, researchers at the Graduate School of Data Science at the Seoul National University introduced eXplainable PRS (XPRS). This visualization tool decomposes PRSs into gene-level and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) contribution scores via Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), providing granular insights into the specific genetic factors driving an individual's risk profile. We used a co-design approach to assess XPRS trustworthiness by considering legal, medical, ethical, and technical robustness during early design and potential clinical use. For that, we used Z-inspection, an ethically aligned Trustworthy AI co-design methodology, and piloted the Council of Europe's Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law Impact Assessment for AI Systems (HUDERIA) (Council of Europe (CAI) 2025). The findings of this use-case comprise a comprehensive set of ethical, legal, and technical lessons learned. These insights, identified by a multidisciplinary team of experts (ethics, legal, human rights, computer science, and medical), serve as a framework for designers to navigate future challenges with this and other AI systems. The findings also provide a useful reference for researchers developing explainability frameworks for PRS in diverse clinical contexts.

John Brandt Brodersen, Ilaria Amelia Caggiano, Pedro Kringen et al.

Assessments of trustworthiness have become a cornerstone of responsible AI development. Especially in high-stakes fields like healthcare, aligning technical, evidence-based, and ethical practices with forthcoming legal requirements is increasingly urgent. We argue that developers and deployers of AI systems for the medical domain should be proactive and take steps to progressively ensure that such systems, both those currently in use and those being developed or planned, respect the requirements of the AI Act, which has come into force in August 2024. This is necessary if full and effective compliance is to be ensured when the most relevant provisions of the Act become effective (August 2026). The engagement with the AI Act cannot be viewed as a formalistic exercise. Compliance with the AI Act needs to be carried out through the proactive commitment to the ethical principles of trustworthy AI. These principles provide the background for the Act, which mentions them several times and connects them to the protection of public interest. They can be used to interpret and apply the Act's provisions and to identify good practices, increasing the validity and sustainability of AI systems over time.