In contemporary veterinary practice, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have become increasingly common across diagnostic imaging, clinical documentation, and supportive decision-making tools. These systems promise enhanced efficiency in processing complex datasets, such as radiographic interpretations or automated record generation. Yet, as with any technological integration into animal health care, their adoption introduces foundational conceptual issues rooted in data representation, algorithmic reliability, and the dynamics of human-AI collaboration.
For professionals in the pet and veterinary fields—ranging from general practitioners to behavior-focused consultants and imaging specialists—these issues center on transparency gaps that can undermine informed clinical judgment. This article examines the core concepts at play, the practical problems encountered in real-world application, and the attendant risks, grounded in established principles of behavioral science, ethology, and evidence-based veterinary practice.
** I came up with the idea of writing this article from reviewing commentary about “A systematic audit of transparency and validation disclosure in commercial veterinary artificial intelligence“, published in early 2026 in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science. The study was led by David Brundage, PhD, and his colleagues.
Transparency
A primary concept is transparency in AI development and deployment. Transparency encompasses clear disclosure of how models are constructed, including the sources and composition of training data, methods of validation, performance metrics, and documented limitations or failure modes. Without this information, practitioners cannot fully evaluate whether a given tool aligns with the patient population they serve.
In veterinary medicine, where individual animals exhibit wide biological variability, opacity creates a fundamental barrier to responsible use. Peer-reviewed literature consistently highlights this as a systemic concern, noting that many commercial tools operate with minimal public documentation of their underlying processes.
Signalment
One recurring problem arises from imbalances in training data, particularly regarding signalment—the combination of species, breed, age, sex, and other patient descriptors that form the cornerstone of veterinary interpretation. Companion animals, especially dogs, display profound breed-specific anatomical and physiological differences. For instance, what constitutes normal thoracic anatomy in a brachycephalic breed may differ markedly from that in a mesocephalic or dolichocephalic dog. Models trained predominantly on data from large-breed or referral-hospital populations may therefore misinterpret routine variations in general-practice cases as abnormalities or conversely overlook breed-typical presentations. Disease prevalence also varies by setting: referral centers encounter higher rates of complex conditions than first-opinion clinics, leading to models that may not generalize well across practice types. These mismatches stem from incomplete data provenance and underscore a broader ethological principle—accurate behavioral and clinical assessment requires contextual understanding of the animal’s natural variation, a concept echoed in foundational work on species-typical behaviors and environmental influences.
Automation Bias
Compounding these data-related challenges are three well-documented cognitive traps that heighten risk when transparency is limited. The first is automation bias, whereby clinicians may accept AI outputs with undue confidence, particularly when interfaces present results without accompanying uncertainty scores or explainability features. Studies in healthcare AI demonstrate that polished, definitive-seeming recommendations can lead users to forgo independent verification, especially under time pressure or fatigue. In veterinary contexts, this bias risks overriding professional observation, such as when subtle behavioral cues or physical findings contradict an algorithmic suggestion.
Domain Mismatch
The second trap involves domain expertise mismatch. Effective oversight of AI—“human in the loop”—presumes the supervising professional possesses sufficient specialized knowledge to detect discrepancies. A board-certified radiologist or behaviorist may readily identify when an output deviates from expected patterns, whereas a generalist working outside their primary area of expertise may lack this safety net. This disparity is particularly relevant in mixed-modality practices where AI tools span imaging and documentation, potentially amplifying errors in cases involving behavioral presentations that require integrated ethological insight.
Burden of Omission
The third trap, burden of omission, is especially pertinent to generative or ambient AI tools used for clinical scribing. When an AI-generated record omits key details from a consultation—such as nuanced behavioral observations or client-reported environmental factors—nothing in the output appears overtly incorrect. Detecting the absence demands that the clinician mentally reconstruct the entire interaction, negating intended time savings and increasing cognitive load. This problem is distinct from outright errors and highlights how incomplete transparency about tool capabilities can erode record accuracy over time.
Having worked directly with dogs for more than 30 years as a behavior consultant, I have found AI tools genuinely useful when incorporated thoughtfully into practice. They excel at providing an initial interpretation of data and can surface patterns that might otherwise require additional time to identify. However, no AI system can replicate the full spectrum of practical insight accumulated through decades of hands-on observation, nor can it encompass the extensive ethological research on canine and mammalian behavior. Subtle nuances in an animal’s presentation, contextual details from the living environment, or client-reported information that a trained professional immediately recognizes as relevant can be missed or omitted in AI outputs. These systems do not physically engage with the dogs themselves and are limited to whatever data is entered—often far less than the rich, unarticulated complexity present in real-world interactions. For this reason, while AI serves as an effective starting point, any comprehensive behavioral assessment, structured needs analysis, risk and readiness profile, development of action pathways, or enrichment recommendations ultimately requires the integrative judgment of an experienced professional who can personally review all available information.
The cumulative risks extend beyond individual cases. Over-reliance on insufficiently transparent systems may erode clinical acumen, introduce systematic biases into practice patterns, and complicate professional accountability. In settings involving behavioral assessment or structured needs analysis, inaccurate foundational diagnostics can indirectly affect subsequent management recommendations and enrichment strategies. Broader field-level concerns include disparities in tool performance across species or geographies, potentially exacerbating inequities in care access for certain patient populations.
Literature on AI in veterinary diagnostics emphasizes that these issues are not hypothetical; they represent documented limitations in model generalizability and external validation. To mitigate such risks, veterinary professionals are encouraged to adopt evaluative frameworks emphasizing data provenance, independent validation on diverse test sets, disclosure of known failure modes, and post-deployment monitoring. These concepts align with broader calls for responsible AI integration, adapted from established regulatory principles in related fields. Imaging applications have shown relatively greater maturity in providing peer-reviewed evidence compared to generative tools, yet even advanced modalities benefit from ongoing scrutiny. Practitioners should prioritize tools that support explainability—allowing users to understand the reasoning behind outputs—and maintain clear documentation of intended use and limitations.
Ultimately, AI tools function best as adjuncts, not replacements, for professional expertise grounded in direct observation and ethological understanding. For complex cases involving health concerns, significant behavioral challenges, or uncertain AI outputs, owners and practitioners alike are encouraged to consult a veterinarian or behavior professional for tailored guidance.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, medical, or veterinary advice. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, or predict outcomes, nor does it override established professional hierarchies or escalation protocols.
This article incorporates AI-assisted drafting based on the BASSO METHOD framework and has been reviewed for accuracy, alignment with ethological principles, and adherence to these parameters.
Bibliography
- Abdelwanis, M., Alarafati, H. K., Tammam, M. M. S., & Simsekler, M. C. E. (2024). Exploring the risks of automation bias in healthcare artificial intelligence applications: A Bowtie analysis. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 5(4), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2024.04.001
- Appleby, R. B., & Basran, P. S. (2022). Artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 260(8), 819–824. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.22.03.0093
- Basran, P. S., & Appleby, R. B. (2022). The unmet potential of artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 83(5), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.22.03.0038
- Bertin, F. R. (2026). The influence, promise, and potential perils of artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.2026
- Brundage, D. (2026). A systematic audit of transparency and validation disclosure in commercial veterinary artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 13, Article 1761038. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2026.1761038
- Joslyn, S., & Alexander, K. (2022). Evaluating artificial intelligence algorithms for use in veterinary radiology. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, 63(S1), S71–S79. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.13159