The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Veterinary Clinical Decision-Making and Associated Risks

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into veterinary medicine, influencing diagnostic and clinical decision-making processes. As AI evolves from auxiliary tools to integral components of clinical practice, it is crucial to examine its implications concerning professional judgment and epistemic authority. This theoretical narrative review analyzes literature from sources including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, focusing on themes such as clinical decision-making, explainability, and veterinary ethics.

The review identifies two primary risks associated with AI integration in veterinary settings. First, there is a risk of authority delegation, where AI outputs might become the primary reference points guiding veterinarians' reasoning, potentially constraining independent judgment. Second, the risk of epistemic-normative reshaping could arise, where AI influences the framework of clinical decisions, particularly in ethically ambiguous areas such as euthanasia or off-label medication use. This raises important questions regarding the extent to which AI should be viewed as an authoritative source in veterinary medicine.

Veterinary clinical decision-making, distinct from human medical practices, involves a triadic relationship among the veterinarian, the animal, and the pet owner, necessitating consideration of various factors, including economic constraints and legal ambiguities. AI-powered systems have shown promise in enhancing decision-making accuracy and effectiveness, but their integration should extend beyond performance metrics to include ethical implications and the dynamics of knowledge authority.

Despite the theoretical acknowledgment of AI's influence on clinical reasoning, it is essential to empirically test these risks in real veterinary settings. Education aimed at fostering critical AI literacy among veterinarians is vital to mitigate the risks of overreliance on automated systems and to maintain the integrity of professional judgment. The review concludes that AI should be treated as a bounded support tool rather than an authoritative entity, emphasizing the need for continued human oversight in clinical decision-making.