Contact

Contact

AI Healthcare Insight (AIHCI)
Published by ScholarGen Inc.

AI Healthcare Insight welcomes communication from healthcare professionals, researchers, engineers, educators, technology professionals, readers, and organizations interested in artificial intelligence and healthcare.

We welcome inquiries concerning editorial matters, factual corrections, scientific sources, copyright, collaboration, and other publication-related issues.

Editorial and General Inquiries

For general questions about AI Healthcare Insight, our editorial activities, published articles, or future coverage, please contact:

Email: office@scholargen.com

Corrections and Factual Concerns

We take accuracy seriously, particularly when publishing medical, scientific, and technical information.

If you identify a factual error, incorrect citation, outdated information, misleading statement, or other significant editorial concern, please contact us with:

  • The title or URL of the relevant article

  • The specific statement or section of concern

  • A description of the issue

  • Supporting evidence or references, when available

Our editorial team will review the information and, when appropriate, make a correction, clarification, or update.

Scientific and Editorial Contributions

Researchers, physicians, engineers, healthcare professionals, and subject-matter experts may contact AIHCI regarding:

  • Editorial contributions

  • Scientific and technical commentary

  • Research-related topics

  • Expert interviews

  • Healthcare AI developments

  • Medical imaging and radiology

  • Digital health and healthcare informatics

  • Collaboration opportunities

All proposed contributions are subject to editorial consideration and do not guarantee publication.

Copyright and Content Concerns

If you believe that material published on AIHCI infringes your copyright or that attribution for third-party material requires correction, please contact us at:

office@scholargen.com

Please identify the relevant page or material and provide sufficient information for the editorial team to investigate the concern.

Business and Partnership Inquiries

Organizations and companies may contact AIHCI regarding appropriate professional and business matters, including:

  • Research and educational collaboration

  • Technology and healthcare initiatives

  • Professional partnerships

  • Publishing opportunities

  • Institutional collaboration

  • Advertising or sponsorship inquiries

Commercial relationships do not guarantee editorial coverage or favorable editorial treatment.

Privacy-Related Questions

For questions concerning privacy, personal information, or the handling of information associated with AI Healthcare Insight, please contact:

office@scholargen.com

For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.

Response and Editorial Review

AI Healthcare Insight reviews communications received through the address above as appropriate to the nature of the inquiry.

Submission of an inquiry, correction request, article proposal, or other communication does not guarantee a response or publication.

Where a substantive factual or editorial issue is identified, AIHCI may update the relevant content in accordance with its Editorial Policy.

Contact Information

AI Healthcare Insight (AIHCI)
Published by ScholarGen Inc.

Editorial & General Inquiries:
office@scholargen.com

Website:
AI Healthcare Insight

Last Updated: September 2026

© 2026 AI Healthcare Insight & ScholarGen Inc. All rights reserved.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why accuracy alone is not enough—and how clinical validation, external testing, human-AI interaction, generalizability, and lifecycle monitoring determine whether medical AI is ready for patient care

Image
Clinical AI Validation: Why Accuracy Alone Is Not Enough Author: Dr. SB Lee An artificial intelligence model can achieve impressive performance in a development dataset and still fail to deliver reliable clinical value. That distinction is at the heart of Clinical AI Validation . A model may demonstrate excellent sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), or segmentation accuracy under controlled experimental conditions. Yet these numbers do not automatically establish that the system is safe, generalizable, clinically useful, or appropriate for deployment in a hospital. The real question is not simply: “How accurate is the AI?” The more important question is: “Does the AI remain reliable when real clinicians use it on real patients in real clinical environments?” Clinical AI validation therefore represents a transition from algorithm evaluation to clinical evidence generation . This distinction is particularly important in medical ...
Read more

FDA-Cleared Medical AI Accuracy: Why the Most Accurate AI Is Not the Most Valuable in Healthcare

Image
A Deep Clinical, Technical, and Economic Analysis of AI Performance Across Radiology, Pathology, and Cardiology Edited by ScholarGen AiHealthcareInsight Team Abstract The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has fundamentally reshaped diagnostic workflows, clinical decision-making, and hospital economics. However, a widespread misconception persists: that FDA-cleared AI systems represent the highest-performing or most accurate technologies available. In reality, regulatory clearance pathways such as the 510(k) process primarily evaluate safety and substantial equivalence rather than clinical superiority. This paper provides a comprehensive, high-resolution analysis of FDA-cleared medical AI systems across major domains, including radiology, pathology, cardiology, and endoscopy. It evaluates diagnostic accuracy using sensitivity, specificity, and AUC metrics while also examining real-world clinical impact, workflow integration, and return on investment (ROI). The...
Read more

Building Trustworthy Medical AI: Explainability, Validation, and Regulatory Readiness

Image
  by Ph. D. Giljae Lee Artificial intelligence can achieve an impressive area under the ROC curve and still fail the most important test in medicine: whether a clinician can safely use its output in a real patient, under real workflow constraints, with consequences that extend beyond the model's benchmark dataset. Consider a radiology department deploying an AI system for pulmonary embolism detection. The algorithm may demonstrate excellent retrospective sensitivity, but what happens when scanners are upgraded, acquisition protocols change, contrast timing differs, or the emergency department begins sending a different patient population? If the system generates dozens of low-value alerts, radiologists may eventually stop paying attention. If an explanation highlights an anatomically plausible region that is not actually responsible for the prediction, the visualization may create false reassurance rather than transparency . This is why trustworthy medical AI cannot be reduced to a...
Read more