The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trust in artificial intelligence for medical diagnoses
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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”
From Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: A web-based experiment (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“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”
From Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI: A web-based experiment (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21056 · Cited by 14,362
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1×
“Not surprisingly, trust was found to underlie willingness to try automation, making it crucial for the successful implementation of AI for healthcare (Lee and Moray, 1994; Lee and See, 2004).”
BackgroundHumans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232
Artificial intelligence in healthcare
Yu, K.-H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z · Cited by 2,817
Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease
De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J. R., Romera-Paredes, B., Nikolov, S., Tomasev, N., Blackwell, S., Askham, H., Glorot, X., O’Donoghue, B., Visentin, D., et al. (2018) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0107-6 · Cited by 2,639
Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 · Cited by 2,061
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–116 of 116
Dharmaputri, S. K., Nyilasy, G., Nagpal, A., & Lei, J. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0339482
Radeva, M. N., Hristova, E. G., Georgiev, R. T., Boyadzhiev, D., & Zlatarova, Z. I. (2026) · Clinical ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s557302
Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry and Oral Medicine: Ethical Issues and Challenges
Harte, M., Feng, Q. J., Carey, B., Addison, O., Tan, Z. Q., Li, Y., & Albuquerque, R. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7448-0_22-2
Trust in Artificial Intelligence Physicians among Turkish Adults
Kantarcıoğlu, A. Ç. (2026) · Social medicine · doi:10.71164/socialmedicine.v19i2.2026.1965
For Those About to Rely—A Taxonomy of Experimental Studies on AI Reliance
Schaschek, M., Spatscheck, N., & Winkelmann, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08480-4_2
Do we trust humans or AI more? — Experimental evidence on individual and group trust behavior
de Boer, H., Luo, H., Mußhoff, O., & Hermann, D. (2026) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2026.102916
Zhang, R., Xie, Q., & Li, B. (2026) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2026.2682493
Huang, N., Li, X., Yang, X., Xie, L., Yang, G., & Zhou, L. (2026) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s26133997
ONTrust: A Reference Ontology of Trust
Amaral, G. C. M., Sales, T. P., Baratella, R., Porello, D., Guizzardi, R. S. S., & Guizzardi, G. (2026) · Applied Ontology · doi:10.1177/15705838261464871
In Algorithms We Trust? Stakeholder Perspectives on Algorithmic and AI-Based Survival Calculators
Hurley, M. E., Kostick, K. M., Smith, J. N., Smolenski, J., Dexter, R., & Blumenthal‐Barby, J. (2026) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2026.2718056
Schaffernak, I., Cecil, J., Kokje, E., Kleine, A., Saad, A., Zemo, F., & Lermer, E. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/93172
Rodriguez-Idiazabal, L., Quintana, J. M., Ser, J. D., Echevarria‐Uraga, J. J., Legarreta, M. J., Larrea, N., García-García, F., & Barrio, I. (2026) · Expert Systems · doi:10.1111/exsy.70440
Do Undergraduates Trust Information More from Humans or GenAI? An Experimental Study
Mattison, T. S., & Conrad, J. (2026) · Open Praxis · doi:10.55982/openpraxis.18.4.1271
Zimber, F., & Tausch, A. (2026) · Journal of Psychology and AI · doi:10.1080/29974100.2026.2739717
AlAteeq, M. A., Alruhaimi, M. A., Alismail, A. K., Alanazi, M. S., Alameer, A. A., Alharbi, R., Almutairi, N., & Alshoumr, B. M. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14213558
Prior-informed machine learning for clinically interpretable medical diagnosis
Lin, Z., Walker, D., Murdoch, C., Colley, H. E., Anumba, D. O. C., & Lang, Z.-Q. (2026) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2026.1973664
Metadata
- 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 › Human Factors and Ergonomics › 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
