Cited by 116Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Trust in artificial intelligence for medical diagnoses

Georgiana Juravle, Andriana Boudouraki, Miglena Terziyska, Constantin Rezlescu·2020·Progress in Brain Research

Abstract

We present two online experiments investigating trust in artificial intelligence (AI) as a primary and secondary medical diagnosis tool and one experiment testing two methods to increase trust in AI. Participants in Experiment 1 read hypothetical scenarios of low and high-risk diseases, followed by two sequential diagnoses, and estimated their trust in the medical findings. In three between-participants groups, the first and second diagnoses were given by: human and AI, AI and human, and human and human doctors, respectively. In Experiment 2 we examined if people expected higher standards of performance from AI than human doctors, in order to trust AI treatment recommendations. In Experiment 3 we investigated the possibility to increase trust in AI diagnoses by: (i) informing our participants that the AI outperforms the human doctor, and (ii) nudging them to prefer AI diagnoses in a choice between AI and human doctors. Results indicate overall lower trust in AI, as well as for diagnoses of high-risk diseases. Participants trusted AI doctors less than humans for first diagnoses, and they were also less likely to trust a second opinion from an AI doctor for high risk diseases. Surprisingly, results highlight that people have comparable standards of performance for AI and human doctors and that trust in AI does not increase when people are told the AI outperforms the human doctor. Importantly, we find that the gap in trust between AI and human diagnoses is eliminated when people are nudged to select AI in a free-choice paradigm between human and AI diagnoses, with trust for AI diagnoses significantly increased when participants could choose their doctor. These findings isolate control over one's medical practitioner as a valid candidate for future trust-related medical diagnosis and highlight a solid potential path to smooth acceptance of AI diagnoses amongst patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.06.006

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous empirical studies on patients' acceptance or trust in AI are somewhat conflicting.

    “The results of previous empirical studies on patients’ acceptance or trust in AI are somewhat conflicting. Some studies have shown that participants are more accepting of AI if it is proven to be more accurate than providers26,29 or if the use of AI fits societal and cultural norms.35,36 However, other studies have found that trust in AI did not increase when participants were informed that the AI”
  • The high-risk result is only partly consistent with previous studies showing participants are more accepting of AI if it is applied in a lower risk setting.

    “This result is only partly consistent with those of previous studies, which have shown that participants are more accepting of AI if it is applied in a lower risk setting.32,34,51”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Juravle, G., Boudouraki, A., Terziyska, M., & Rezlescu, C.
Affiliations
  • Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (RO)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Georgiana Juravle
Venue
Progress in Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
2020
Volume
253
Pages
263-282
ISSN
0079-6123 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3039044431
Cited by
116
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4
FWCI
5.46
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Progress in brain research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
trust in AI, diagnosis, second opinion, high-risk disease, nudging, patient acceptance of AI, human-AI collaboration
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Trust, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review