Blab AI
American Osteopathic Association Endorses New AI Framework to Guide Responsible Use in Osteopathic Medicine
In July 2026, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) formally adopted the OsteopathicAI definition, a profession‑level standard that outlines how artificial intelligence should be used ethically in osteopathic medicine.
The decision, approved by the AOA House of Delegates, follows backing from the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the American Osteopathic Information Association (AOiA). Together, they create a shared framework for education, clinical practice, research, and policy within the osteopathic community.
AI already permeates many facets of medical care. A 2026 Doximity State of AI in Medicine Report found that 63 % of U.S. physicians use AI tools, up from 47 % the year before, and 94 % either use or are interested in using AI. The report highlights that AI is integrated into exam rooms, residency programs, and administrative workflows.
The OsteopathicAI definition emerged from extensive stakeholder engagement and public feedback, and it lays out nine core requirements that AI systems must satisfy when applied to osteopathic care: 1. Augmentation and accountability – AI supports clinicians and teams, but a credentialed human remains accountable for outcomes. 2. Whole‑person, relationship‑centered intent – AI must protect human dignity, autonomy, and the therapeutic alliance. 3. Safety with responsible human oversight – AI outputs that affect patient care must be reviewed by an authorized clinician who can override or halt the system. 4. Truthfulness and transparency – systems must disclose limitations, uncertainty, data use, and their role in decision‑making. 5. Privacy and security by design – AI must handle sensitive data lawfully and protect against misuse. 6. Fairness and harm reduction – developers and users must identify and mitigate bias, especially for underserved populations. 7. Evidence and validation proportional to risk – higher‑risk applications require stronger evidence, validation, and ongoing monitoring. 8. Osteopathic distinctiveness – when AI supports osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) or other osteopathic practices, it must be reviewed against osteopathic expertise. 9. Collaboration and lawful de‑identified data sharing – osteopathic entities should share data for education and research within governed, controlled environments.
The definition is vendor‑neutral and designed to grow alongside AI technology while staying rooted in osteopathic principles. It is not a product endorsement or rigid framework, but a call for trust, judgment, and osteopathic identity.
The AOA’s resolution, H‑623, affirms the association’s support for safe, effective AI tools that enhance patient‑centered care, and it endorses the OsteopathicAI definition as a minimum professional standard. The resolution also requires the AOiA to submit an annual report to the House of Delegates describing any updates to the definition.
The endorsement arrives as the Joint Commission launches its Responsible Use of AI in Healthcare (RUAIH) certification program on June 1, 2026, which treats responsible AI use as a patient‑safety, quality, governance, privacy, and trust concern. By adopting the OsteopathicAI framework, the osteopathic profession positions itself as a proactive leader in AI governance.
The next phase is led by a newly formed OsteopathicAI work group, which will release a roadmap for advancing AI across education, clinical practice, research, and policy. Over the first 12 months, the group will share the definition, gather implementation feedback, and develop educational resources, disclosure practices, simulation tools, and supervised workflows. It will also promote the ADEPT (Advancing Digital Education and Physician Transformation) and ADOPT (Advancing Digital Osteopathic Practice Transformation) frameworks, which provide actionable pathways for AI adoption and governance.
In short, the AOA’s endorsement of the OsteopathicAI definition establishes a living standard that will guide osteopathic physicians, educators, and health systems in integrating AI responsibly. The framework is already in use by many practitioners, and the profession will continue to refine it through annual reporting and collaboration with regulatory bodies such as the Joint Commission.
The decision, approved by the AOA House of Delegates, follows backing from the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the American Osteopathic Information Association (AOiA). Together, they create a shared framework for education, clinical practice, research, and policy within the osteopathic community.
AI already permeates many facets of medical care. A 2026 Doximity State of AI in Medicine Report found that 63 % of U.S. physicians use AI tools, up from 47 % the year before, and 94 % either use or are interested in using AI. The report highlights that AI is integrated into exam rooms, residency programs, and administrative workflows.
The OsteopathicAI definition emerged from extensive stakeholder engagement and public feedback, and it lays out nine core requirements that AI systems must satisfy when applied to osteopathic care: 1. Augmentation and accountability – AI supports clinicians and teams, but a credentialed human remains accountable for outcomes. 2. Whole‑person, relationship‑centered intent – AI must protect human dignity, autonomy, and the therapeutic alliance. 3. Safety with responsible human oversight – AI outputs that affect patient care must be reviewed by an authorized clinician who can override or halt the system. 4. Truthfulness and transparency – systems must disclose limitations, uncertainty, data use, and their role in decision‑making. 5. Privacy and security by design – AI must handle sensitive data lawfully and protect against misuse. 6. Fairness and harm reduction – developers and users must identify and mitigate bias, especially for underserved populations. 7. Evidence and validation proportional to risk – higher‑risk applications require stronger evidence, validation, and ongoing monitoring. 8. Osteopathic distinctiveness – when AI supports osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) or other osteopathic practices, it must be reviewed against osteopathic expertise. 9. Collaboration and lawful de‑identified data sharing – osteopathic entities should share data for education and research within governed, controlled environments.
The definition is vendor‑neutral and designed to grow alongside AI technology while staying rooted in osteopathic principles. It is not a product endorsement or rigid framework, but a call for trust, judgment, and osteopathic identity.
The AOA’s resolution, H‑623, affirms the association’s support for safe, effective AI tools that enhance patient‑centered care, and it endorses the OsteopathicAI definition as a minimum professional standard. The resolution also requires the AOiA to submit an annual report to the House of Delegates describing any updates to the definition.
The endorsement arrives as the Joint Commission launches its Responsible Use of AI in Healthcare (RUAIH) certification program on June 1, 2026, which treats responsible AI use as a patient‑safety, quality, governance, privacy, and trust concern. By adopting the OsteopathicAI framework, the osteopathic profession positions itself as a proactive leader in AI governance.
The next phase is led by a newly formed OsteopathicAI work group, which will release a roadmap for advancing AI across education, clinical practice, research, and policy. Over the first 12 months, the group will share the definition, gather implementation feedback, and develop educational resources, disclosure practices, simulation tools, and supervised workflows. It will also promote the ADEPT (Advancing Digital Education and Physician Transformation) and ADOPT (Advancing Digital Osteopathic Practice Transformation) frameworks, which provide actionable pathways for AI adoption and governance.
In short, the AOA’s endorsement of the OsteopathicAI definition establishes a living standard that will guide osteopathic physicians, educators, and health systems in integrating AI responsibly. The framework is already in use by many practitioners, and the profession will continue to refine it through annual reporting and collaboration with regulatory bodies such as the Joint Commission.
