The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators
Open accessAbstract
Automation bias (AB)--the tendency to over-rely on automation--has been studied in various academic fields. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) aim to benefit the clinical decision-making process. Although most research shows overall improved performance with use, there is often a failure to recognize the new errors that CDSS can introduce. With a focus on healthcare, a systematic review of the literature from a variety of research fields has been carried out, assessing the frequency and severity of AB, the effect mediators, and interventions potentially mitigating this effect. This is discussed alongside automation-induced complacency, or insufficient monitoring of automation output. A mix of subject specific and freetext terms around the themes of automation, human-automation interaction, and task performance and error were used to search article databases. Of 13 821 retrieved papers, 74 met the inclusion criteria. User factors such as cognitive style, decision support systems (DSS), and task specific experience mediated AB, as did attitudinal driving factors such as trust and confidence. Environmental mediators included workload, task complexity, and time constraint, which pressurized cognitive resources. Mitigators of AB included implementation factors such as training and emphasizing user accountability, and DSS design factors such as the position of advice on the screen, updated confidence levels attached to DSS output, and the provision of information versus recommendation. By uncovering the mechanisms by which AB operates, this review aims to help optimize the clinical decision-making process for CDSS developers and healthcare practitioners.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The result is a cognitive moral hazard: epistemic responsibility is abdicated not because delegation is appropriate, but because the trainee cannot distinguish appropriate delegation from uncritical acceptance 29 .”
From AI-induced never-skilling in medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Automation bias, well described in clinical decision support contexts, can lead individuals to privilege automated recommendations even when flawed, contributing to errors of commission or omission and reducing vigilance in information seeking [47].”
From Design and evaluation of a faculty development workshop series on integrating generative artificial intelligence in medical education: mixed methods pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [47]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For humans, post-hoc interaction with such outputs is opaque and coarse-grained: experts must reverseengineer the model's reasoning to correct errors, while novices risk automation bias and over-reliance on machine-generated authority [32, 44, 87].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These fi ndings relate to work on automation bias, algorithm aversion, and 'appropriate reliance' [5, 32, 44, 87].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“HR professionals might utilize a system for decision support differently, as prior experience with personnel selection tasks is related to higher confidence in one’s own decisions, resulting in a lower reliance on the system and less automation bias (Goddard et al., 2012; Langer et al., 2021).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This way, the design of the system can support the attention of decision makers by varying reliability over time (Goddard et al., 2012; Zerilli et al., 2019).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Automation bias has been found to be a serious problem in contexts of AI-based decision support systems (Mosier and Skitka, 1999; Goddard et al., 2012; Lyell et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2020)”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The core finding is broadly consistent: when humans receive an algorithmic recommendation, they defer to it at rates exceeding what would be warranted by the algorithm's demonstrated accuracy, even when available evidence contradicts the recommendation (Skitka, Mosier, and Burdick 1999;Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012).”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These factors have also been deemed influential in a systematic review by Goddard et al. (2012).”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The risk of automation bias occurs in this process: a human being relies too heavily on the algorithm, even in the face of erroneous predictions (Goddard et al. 2011).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Goddard et al. 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In the conclusion of their systematic review, Goddard et al. (2012) propose that expertise may act on primary drivers to influence reliance on DSS, with those primary drivers being trust and confidence, again emphasising that expertise likely plays an indirect role on reliance behaviour.”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Expertise, expected to be a predictor of both trust and reliance (Goddard et al., 2012), has been shown to reduce trust and reliance on AI, even when the user's judgement is incorrect (Küper et al., 2024).”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Goddard et al. (2012) propose that heightened confidence in one's own decisions generally diminishes reliance on external support, identifying confidence as a primary influence on reliance behaviour alongside trust.”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This risk is amplified by automation bias, the tendency to over-rely on algorithmic output, by leading clinicians to accept erroneous recommendations without adequate scrutiny.17-21”
From Automation Bias in Large Language Model Assisted Diagnostic Reasoning Among AI-Trained Physicians (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The principle of non-discrimination in algorithmic decision-making is the last to consider for completing the algorithmic legality fundamental requirements. This translates into a duty to avoid so-called automation biases 75 , preventing outcomes that might be discriminatory toward the addressee of administrative action.”
From Transparency Warranties for Algorithmic Decisions in Administrative Procedures. Synopsis between EU Law and the Italian Legal System (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC (2012)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Experimental lab studies have diagnosed this tendency across a number of research fields (Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012).”
From Human–AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: “Automation Bias” and “Selective Adherence” to Algorithmic Advice (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, systems to aid decision-making might especially be considered for novice HR professionals as these systems tend to improve the decision-making quality of less experienced decision makers (Goddard et al., 2012; Langer et al., 2021).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Automation bias has been found to lead to adverse effects on decision outcomes in several other contexts before (e.g., Parasuraman and Manzey, 2010; Goddard et al., 2012).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Even when AI operates at the level of recommendation rather than direct action, the mere presence of an algorithmic suggestion can systematically shift human judgment toward the algorithm's conclusion, a phenomenon known as automation bias (Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012;Alon-Barkat and Busuioc 2023).”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Human involvement therefore does not necessarily guarantee effective control (Goddard et al. 2012).”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al. 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This tendency is consistent with automation bias, in which people overrely on automated recommendations and accept them without sufficient independent verification (Goddard et al., 2012).”
From Think Before You Accept: Can Written Justification Reduce Uncritical Uptake of AI Writing Suggestions? (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“All had previously passed our standard psychological screener [30].”
From Progressive Disclosure: When, Why, and How Do Users Want Algorithmic Transparency Information? (2020) · cites this paper as [30]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Automation bias can occur in busy clinical settings where clinicians may feel pressure to make rapid decisions, leading them to rely on AI-generated results as a shortcut rather than engaging in thorough analysis.44”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
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
Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K. J., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., & Haynes, R. B. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 · Cited by 2,936
Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors
Koppel, R. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1197 · Cited by 2,126
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710
Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems
LEE, J., & MORAY, N. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967392 · Cited by 1,459
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Wyatt J . Lessons learned from the field trial of ACORN, an expert system to advise on chest pain. In: Barber B Cao D Qin D , eds. Proc. Sixth World Conference on Medical Informatics, Singapore. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1989:111–15.
- Prinzel LJ Freeman FG Prinzel HD . Individual differences in complacency and monitoring for automation failures. Individual Differences Research 2005;3:27–49.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–1,000 of 1,008
AI-Augmented Leadership and Digital Decision-Making Models
Roos, G. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-2541-3.ch002
Human-in-the-loop reconsidered: Shadow use and reliance management in drug development
Inoue, Y. (2026) · Global Health & Medicine · doi:10.35772/ghm.2026.01067
Kares, F., König, C. J., Polly, M., & Langer, M. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100336 · Cited by 2
Right-to-Override (R2O) Interfaces: Safe Circuit Breakers for Frontline Automation
GUDIPATI, S. K., & PONUGOTI, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30044-7_3
Herari, N., Santika, A. A., Hassan, Z. B., Anjani, F. F., & Pratama, M. R. K. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8192-3.ch008
Lennefer, T. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29842-3_23
Song, Y., Mao, Y., Song, S., Li, S., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9988294/v1
EvalIA: Towards a Hybrid AI-Supported Platform for Oral Performance Assessment
Douss, R., & Marouki, A. (2026) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon67543.2026.11574279
“The blind evaluation mode option—where teachers complete independent assessment before viewing AI scores—addresses concerns about automation bias, the documented tendency for humans to over-rely on automated recommendations ( [29]).”
Lalk, C., Steinbrenner, T., & Rubel, J. (2026) · Die Psychotherapie · doi:10.1007/s00278-026-00860-2
Integrating Generative AI in Design Education: Metacognitive Patterns in AI-Naive Students
Passerini, C., & Gasparotto, S. (2026) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon67543.2026.11574333
“In the educational context, this bias is relevant: students, especially those with less experience in the domain, tend to overestimate the accuracy of outputs generated by AI perceived as “authoritative” [3].”
Explanation Depth and Trust Calibration in AI-Driven Financial Advice: A Behavioural ExperimentPreprint
Kashyap, S., & Srivastava, N. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9888939/v1
Shankar, R. (2026) · Laboratories · doi:10.3390/laboratories3030009
“Presenting an unsourced, confident-looking extraction instead invites automation bias, the well-documented tendency to accept a plausible machine output without adequate scrutiny [18].”
Moral diversity and the challenge of responsibility in AI-CDSS
Liedtke, W., & Langanke, M. (2026) · Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13010-026-00226-1 · Cited by 1
“One could almost speak of a “burden bias” in analogy to automation bias [59] (see Fig.”
Jimenez, J. C., McIntosh, D. F., Rowe, V. L., & Hines, O. J. (2026) · JVS-Vascular Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jvsvi.2026.100486 · Cited by 1
Parsons, M. V., Buckley, O., Ebadi, H., Leuthardt, E. C., & McIntosh, T. J. (2026) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2026.1818670
Human-AI Interaction in Healthcare - A Manifesto for Improved Usability Evaluation
Oliveira, M., Cruz, C. F., & Matela, N. (2026) · ACM Interactive Health Conference · doi:10.1145/3786579.3804937
“Environmental factors including workload and task complexity also affect the tendency towards automation bias [13].”
InfluentialYe, J. Y., Shen, Z.-J., Li, B., & Yan, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1866163
“In university settings, where severe adverse outcomes are low-base-rate events and behavioral features are often high-dimensional and context-sensitive (7, 11), such constraints may help limit over fi tting and reduce unwarranted alert escalation (14, 15).”
Lahiri, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1881783 · Cited by 1
Nigro, A. (2026) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2026-0062
“The risk of automation bias, the tendency to defer uncritically to algorithmic output, is real and well-documented [14].”
Kim, Y., Choe, S., Jeong, S., Ding, J., Wang, X., Lee�, H., & Kim, B. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Neurology · doi:10.3988/jcn.2026.0312
“2,3,6,18,67 Therefore, AI trials should evaluate the entire sociotechnical system rather than the algorithm alone.”
InfluentialAliev, B., & Atanasov, B. T. (2026) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm16070366
“Another important concern is automation bias, whereby clinicians place excessive trust in algorithmic recommendations despite conflicting clinical evidence or judgments [88].”
Verma, R., Bains, S. S., Muthani, S. H. R., Arunachalam, A., Mohan, V., & Gold, J. A. (2026) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/85015
Kirchhoff, J., Berns, F., Schieder, C., & Schobel, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1871438
“Possible measurement strategies include structured differential elicitation before AI exposure, blinded second-reader designs, randomization of explanation timing, and monitoring of premature diagnostic closure [25, 26].”
From Executor to Orchestrator: The Pharmacology Scientist in the Age of Agentic AI
McCoy, M., & McCoy, M. (2026) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.70380
“70,71 A study of 223 healthcare providers found that AI recommendations exerted a stronger influence on diagnostic accuracy than provider experience, qualifications, or baseline performance: participants were ten times more likely to make correct decisions when receiving correct AI recommendations…”
KI zur Befähigung der Entwicklung nachhaltiger Produkte
Berkhahn, M., Ebel, H., Kremer, G., & Stark, R. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-52117-2_20
Domil, A. E., SĂRAC, I., Saptebani, N., & Ciprian, V. L. A. D. (2026) · Review of Management and Economic Engineering · doi:10.71235/rmee.265
“These scenarios have been documented in other fields as well, such as radiology (Goddard et al., 2012), aviation (Mosier & Skitka, 1996), and financial services (Bhatt, Bhatt, & Brown, 2022).”
Gebert, A., Linnemann, G., Brünett, M., Steffny, L., & Weidner, F. (2026) · Pflege · doi:10.1024/1012-5302/a001084
Human Agency and Skill in AI-Supported Work: Countering Cognitive Offloading
Fregosi, C., Fischer, S. W. S., Natali, C., Schraffenberger, H., & Cabitza, F. (2026) · Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK) · doi:10.1145/3805029.3818273
“These include automation bias [6, 7], inappropriate reliance [1, 15], reduced critical engagement and agency [8], and—over time deskilling or inhibition of upskilling [12].”
Information Seeking Behavior in LLM-Based RAG: Mental Models and Missing Information
Sotic, B. N., & Kamps, J. (2026) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3805712.3808537 · Cited by 1
Troublefield, T. C. (2026) · Journal of Information Security · doi:10.4236/jis.2026.173015
Zhang, L., Chen, Q., Zhang, B., Fang, J., Mo, X., & Zhang, S. (2026) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2026.06.022
Kononykhina, O., Schierholz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2026) · Journal of Official Statistics · doi:10.1177/0282423x261455656
Gómez-Gutiérrez, O. A., Imbrognio, F., la Torre, O. A. D., Vegas, D. H., & Fabiani, M. A. (2026) · Annals of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2026.07.004
AI Influences Visual Search in Mammography
Clauser, P. (2026) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.261855
Oehring, D. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.07.13.26357968
Cognitive Vulnerabilities in AI-Augmented Organisational Decision-Making
Gültekin, D. G. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8302-6.ch009
Artificial intelligence, preventive cardiology and making time for what matters: a fellow’s voice
Lopes, R. A. (2026) · American Journal of Preventive Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ajpc.2026.101754
“These systems require access to large volumes of sensitive health information, highlighting the importance of robust safeguards for data privacy, secure information exchange, and responsible governance as it becomes increasingly integrated into routine cardiovascular care [2,9].”
Huang, X., Sr. (2026) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/94559
“Rather than treating technology as a simple source of information support, this concept captures a psychological experience in which one’s room for participation, judgment, and control is reduced [26, 27].”
Fan, L., Miao, Y., Li, S., & Zhang, J. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-3563-6_14
Buzea, C. G., & Agop, M. (2026) · Artificial intelligence · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1014563
Shakir, K., Sarlak, H., Rogati, G., Leardini, A., Berti, L., & Caravaggi, P. (2026) · Informatics · doi:10.3390/informatics13070117
“This risk aligns with well-documented evidence of automation bias in CDSS, in which convincing but incorrect responses may mislead clinicians [30,31].”
VETTING: A dual-LLM framework for in-loop safety verification via policy isolation in educational AI
Li, H., Zhang, S., & Botelho, A. F. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100646
Die KI-Achse: Allgemeine und modellabhängige Fehlermuster
Elsharkawy, A. E. (2026) · Essentials · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-74123-8_5
Die Mensch-Achse: Input, Kognition und Handlung
Elsharkawy, A. E. (2026) · Essentials · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-74123-8_4
Awata, B. G. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10424558/v1
Noyori, S., Shibuya, K., Nozaki, Y., Takamune, S., Sugeta, R., 橋本, 美., Kuriyama, A., Higashi, K., Sassa, T., Tanaka, H., et al. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.98325
Zhu, Y., & Zheng, L. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7163834
Deep learning–based detection of acid-fast bacilli in microscopy images: a systematic review
Rastogi, K., Singh, L., Khan, A., Roy, P. P., & Vk, I. (2026) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqag083
Pakull, T. M. G., Bender, N., Benson, S., Fleischhauer, A., Alsara, M., Gromke, T., Hilser, T., Kaminski, K., Pogorzelski, M., Prasuhn, N., et al. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/99136 · Cited by 1
“The clinician-supervised drafting workflow assumes that expert reviewers will detect every critical error before patient delivery, though automation bias [49] may compromise this in practice.”
Large language models and cognitive debt in plastic surgery practice
Novo, J., Seth, I., Shadid, O. H., Xie, Y., Ross, R. J., & Rozen, W. M. (2026) · Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.34239/ajops.163047
Governed Agentic Process Automation: A Floor-Safety Guarantee for Compliance-Critical LLM Routing
Pacella, M., Papadia, G., & Giliberti, V. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19080627
Yang, J., Wang, R., Guo, F., & Chen, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1893231 · Cited by 1
“In medical education, students may therefore trust AI outputs because they appear structured and professional (18), potentially overlooking terminological-level errors (E3) or reasoning-level inconsistencies (E4), such as the wind-dryness versus wind-heat misdi-agnosis case described above.”
Amoei, M., Fraser, K., & Poenaru, D. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.107982 · Cited by 1
Deobhakta, A. A., Rosen, R. B., Chadha, N., Tsai, J. C., Harris, A., & Pasquale, L. R. (2026) · Current Ophthalmology Reports · doi:10.1007/s40135-026-00355-y
“[20] Cabitza and colleagues drew attention to the AI systems achieve substantially higher sensitivity (87–97”
Angioni, D., & Bello, F. D. (2026) · AboutOpen · doi:10.33393/ao.2026.3940 · Cited by 1
Shared Intelligence and Misaligned Firm EntryPreprint
Chi, F., & Yang, N. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6799682
Algorithmic Third-Party Advice in Markets with Complex GoodsPreprint
Bao, L., Kalaycı, K., & Sun, R. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7107878
Denecke, K., & Gabarrón, E. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1785085
Using AI for Rubric Based Grading: A Practical Guide for Instructors
James, M., Boster, C., Hu, Z., & Ngo, T. (2026) · Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice · doi:10.33423/rg5qxs41
The Illusion of Seamless Service
Najati, I. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-2977-0.ch004
Naye, F., Ouellet, S., Yousefi, F., Cachinho, C., Bergeron, F., Bhattacharyya, O. K., Stamenova, V., & Sasseville, M. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/96882 · Cited by 2
“How clinicians interact with AI-CDSSs, such as relying on recommendations without sufficient critical appraisal or disregarding relevant outputs, can shape how these risks materialize in practice [36].”
Šurdilović, D., Shetty, R. M., Azim, S. A., Awadalkreem, F., & Siriwardena, B. S. M. S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10208256/v1
Before the Answer: Preventing Never-Skilling in Oncology Training
Baloch, Z., Leyfman, Y., & Thaker, N. G. (2026) · AI in Precision Oncology · doi:10.1177/2993091x261474371
“6 Importantly, the presence of AI alone does not guarantee improved decision-making.”
Formative Modeling of Multi-Agent AI-Based AR Decision Support for Rural Emergency Department Triage
Kim, J., Sealock, K., Tellier, L., & Park, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813261475195
Chingarande, G. R. (2026) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70548
Introduction: The Imperative of Hybrid Intelligence in Digital Governance
Alibašić, H. (2026) · Public administration and information technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28086-2_1
Je délègue une intention à un agent IA
Trardi, Y. (2026) · Revue d Orthopédie Dento-Faciale · doi:10.1051/odf/2026034
Farias, L. G. M., Siqueira, A. C. C., Santos, K. F. A. D., Cássio, Z. I. N. I., & Linder, T. E. (2026) · BioSCIENCE · doi:10.55684/2026.84.en.e00019
MacLeod, G., Çevik, H. S., Varahra, A., & Thompson, K. (2026) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmag063
Wu, F., Xiao, H., & Lin, X. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261477182
Rosbach, E., Ammeling, J., Bertram, C., Riener, A., & Aubreville, M. (2026) · Veterinary Pathology · doi:10.1177/03009858261472493
Zhou, H., Zhou, L.-J., Lin, T.-C., Li, H.-T., Dong, M.-Y., Guo, Y.-H., Wen, L.-H., & Huang, W. (2026) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2026.07.045
Bornand, C. E. I., Kunkel, M. E., Martins, L. E. G., Molléri, J. S., & Autio, E. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10156547/v1
Arthur, F., Abraham, A. Y., & Inkoom, M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9484-8.ch015
The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI CollaborationPreprint
Qi, A., & Wang, M. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7207559
Human Oversight Is Not a Safety Net: Automation Bias in Medical Imaging
Wiebe, S. (2026) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1177/08465371261476671
Kumari, J., Yadav, P., & Bhargava, C. P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8988-2.ch001
Tajima, H. (2026) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/99590
“In health care specifically, systematic reviews have documented automation bias as a recurring safety concern in computerized clinical decision support, identifying task complexity, cognitive load, and verification demands as principal mediators of overre-liance [11-13].”
Generative AI and the Formation of Practical Wisdom: A Thomistic Analysis
Abadal, L. M. (2026) · Journal of Religious Ethics · doi:10.1111/jore.70027
Gupta, G., Shubham, S., Joshi, R., Ahmed, S. M., & Puri, N. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.114149
Narayan, R., & Diduc, S. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Reality (ICIR) · doi:10.1109/icir70631.2026.11628234
“Automation bias denotes the tendency to weight automated outputs more heavily than disconfirming information, particularly in monitoring and decision-aid contexts [17], [18].”
Integrating AI-Augmented Practice Into Physical Therapy Education: A Competency Overlay Framework
Hardwick, D. (2026) · Journal of Physical Therapy Education · doi:10.1097/jte.0000000000000497
Kwolek, K., Laskowska, W., Pilarek, M., Ożga, S., Roszkowska, M., Furtak, M., Janczarski, S., Sarna, D., Wąs, L., & Tryczyński, P. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science · doi:10.31435/ijitss.3(51).2026.6076
Explainable Discomfort Detection: A Privacy-Aware Framework for Patient-Centered AI
Liu, S., & Liu, J. (2026) · International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET) · doi:10.1109/icecet65726.2026.11633260
“A second major challenge is automation bias, the tendency for humans to over-rely on automated suggestions, potentially overriding their own clinical judgment [28].”
The efficiency–verification trade-off in large language model-assisted workplace risk assessment
Bosler, A., Koppel, T., & Reinhold, K. (2026) · Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences · doi:10.3176/proc.2026.3.10
AI-Driven Strategic Planning in the Western Balkans: Navigating Challenges, Unlocking Opportunities
Kacani, J., Trunk, A., Nechkoska, R. P., Xhafa, B., Qorraj, G., Jahić, H., & Kopani, S. (2026) · Engineering cyber-physical systems and critical infrastructures · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18275-3_2
The AI Colleague: Reimagining Interprofessional Collaboration and Education in Medicine
Yuh, C., Cho, C., & Lee, Y. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/94034
“Automation bias—overreliance on computer suggestions even when incorrect—has been documented extensively in clinical decision support, and it can be amplified when AI outputs carry perceived objectivity or institutional endorsement [24,27].”
Automation at Both Ends: A Coasean Theory of Determinacy and the Adoption of Generative SystemsPreprint
Rukkiatwong, N. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7283738
Aldis, R., Wang, S., Sage, M., Metzmaker, M., & Galvin, H. K. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.14.26360467
Misraï, V., Bruchon, A., Prokar Dasgupta, A., Shariat, S. F., Teoh, J. Y. C., Loubes, J., Pujari, S., & Piau, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1918841
Deep Learning for the Assessment of Alveolar Bone Loss on Intraoral Radiographs: A Systematic Review
Hashim, N. T., Gismalla, B. G., Rahman, M. M., Mohammed, R., Padmanabhan, V., Islam, M. S., Babiker, R. A., Elsheikh, M., Ahmed, A., & Kukreja, B. J. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16162575
“No included study examined whether providing model output to a clinician improved that clinician(cid:31)s diagnostic accuracy, changed treatment planning, altered referral pa tt erns, or induced automation bias, the well-documented tendency to accept an incorrect machine recommendation [57].”
Lee, G.-M., Won, J.-Y., Cho, E. Y., Kim, J., Chung, K. S., Kim, K. J., Yun, S. J., Lee, H. J., & Kim, J. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/93466
“The AI prediction model was conceptualized as a clini-cian-facing CDSS rather than an autonomous diagnostic or treatment system [10].”
InfluentialED-triage-agent: a multi-agent framework for human-in-the-loop emergency triage
Karthick, Sivadas, H., Edwards, C., Gunja, N., & Reddy, S. (2026) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106652 · Cited by 3
Perspective Chapter: Leveraging AI to Enhance Geriatric Care on Medicine and Surgery Floors
Nathan, A., Pagali, S. R., Chaar, M. K. A., Agarwal, S., & Agarwal, N. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1016908
From Algorithm to Augmentation: Redefining Human–AI Dynamics in Modern Healthcare
Gresbek, M., & Schirmer, H. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1017039
de Oliveira, M. A., Roquette, C., Matela, N., & Cruz, C. F. (2026) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857926151201
“This opacity is considered a primary driver of automation bias where users over-rely on system outputs and reviewer fatigue, both of which undermine clinical decision-making (Goddard et al., 2012) ( Figure 1 ).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C.
- Affiliations
- City, University of London (GB)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Goddard, Kate
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-127
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC3240751
- OpenAlex
- W2281090488
- Cited by
- 1,162
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 513 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- automation bias, clinical decision support systems, human-automation interaction, over-reliance on automation, trust in automation, cognitive style, workload, task complexity, time constraints, user accountability, DSS design, clinical decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Computers, Automation, Aviation, Humans, Task Performance and Analysis, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
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
