So it's a balance. You want high sensitivity, but you also don't want to cry wolf.

Exactly. And they also gave clinicians the ability to override the alert. If a physician felt a patient was safe to go home despite the score, they could document their reasoning and proceed. That's important for preserving clinical autonomy.

That makes sense. We don't want AI making the final call, we want it to be a decision support tool.

Right and the study found that when clinicians did override the alert, the patient was more likely to be readmitted. But that's not a failure of the tool, it's a signal that the tool is actually identifying something real.

A structured field might only check for a prior heart attack. But the NLP can pick up on a note that says 'patient has mild heart failure, well-controlled' and flag that as a potential exclusion — or, depending on the trial, a potential inclusion.

So the context matters. That's where the AI earns its keep.

Exactly. But — and this is the important caveat — these systems are not making the final call. They're generating a shortlist. The physician still has to review and approve each candidate.

That makes sense. The liability and the ethical responsibility have to stay with a human.

And that's the right balance right now.