Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Unlabelled: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical medicine presents a persistent paradox: diagnostic models routinely demonstrate benchmark superiority over human experts, yet bedside adoption remains fragile, and clinician trust is low. Conventional forecasting approaches-projecting model performance along optimistic trend lines-are epistemologically insufficient because they cannot account for the nonlinear sociotechnical transitions that separate technical capability from institutional trust. This Viewpoint applies backcasting, a normative futures methodology with a 4-decade evidence base in energy policy and public governance, to the specific challenge of clinician adoption of AI diagnostics, with the aim of identifying the structural interventions required to achieve durable trust by 2040. Consistent with the tradition of single-expert normative foresight analysis, we applied backcasting as a structured reasoning framework using a STEEP (social, technological, economic, environmental, and political) analysis. Sources from PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar, and policy repositories (the US Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, and European Commission) published between 2010 and 2025 were reviewed; barriers and enablers were coded across STEEP dimensions to identify pivot points representing convergent, time-bound structural changes. Working backward from a defined 2040 vision state-a health care ecosystem with risk-stratified clinician trust thresholds, semantic transparency of AI outputs, integrated AI governance, and futures literacy in medical education-we identified three temporal pivot points: (1) the 2030 standardization of dual-process AI architectures, in which large language models are verified in real time by locally deployed small language models, producing a calibrated confidence score; (2) the 2035 institutionalization of agentic AI orchestration governed by a formally designated chief AI officer; and (3) the 2040 integration of futures literacy and human-AI teaming competencies into standard medical curricula. The AI trust gap is an institutional design problem, not a technical inevitability. Backcasting reframes the central question from "when will AI be ready for medicine?" to "what must we build to make medicine ready for AI?" The 3 pivot points identified here-verifiable AI by 2030, agentic governance by 2035, and futures literacy by 2040-are structural commitments that clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers can begin building today.
Yunguo Yu (Fri,) studied this question.