Cited by 58Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detectionExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Lessons Learned from Designing an AI-Enabled Diagnosis Tool for Pathologists

Open access
Gu, Hongyan, Huang, Jingbin, Hung, Lauren, Chen, Xiang 'Anthony'·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Despite the promises of data-driven artificial intelligence (AI), little is known about how we can bridge the gulf between traditional physician-driven diagnosis and a plausible future of medicine automated by AI. Specifically, how can we involve AI usefully in physicians' diagnosis workflow given that most AI is still nascent and error-prone (\eg in digital pathology)? To explore this question, we first propose a series of collaborative techniques to engage human pathologists with AI given AI's capabilities and limitations, based on which we prototype Impetus --- a tool where an AI takes various degrees of initiatives to provide various forms of assistance to a pathologist in detecting tumors from histological slides. We summarize observations and lessons learned from a study with eight pathologists and discuss recommendations for future work on human-centered medical AI systems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3449084

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is still limited evidence-based knowledge of the context, design, and psychological mechanisms that would craft an optimal human-AI team.

    “Notwithstanding a clear agenda on the issues that we should explore further, we still have limited evidence-based knowledge of the context, design, and psychological mechanisms that would craft an optimal human–ai team15–17.”

    From Experimental evidence of effective human–AI collaboration in medical decision-making (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Introduction says little work has addressed how physicians can use imperfect AI in diagnosis, and §2.1 identifies a lack of research on how medical human–AI collaboration can provide new knowledge to AI. Those passages support a narrower research gap, but not the claim of limited evidence-based knowledge about context, design, and psychological mechanisms for optimal human–AI teams generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning 45, 1 (2001), 5-32.
  2. Duen Horng Chau, Aniket Kittur, Jason I Hong, and Christos Faloutsos. 2011. Apolo: making sense of large network data by combining rich user interaction and machine learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 167-176.
  3. Geert Litjens, Peter Bandi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Oscar Geessink, Maschenka Balkenhol, Peter Bult, Altuna Halilovic, Meyke Hermsen, Rob van de Loo, Rob Vogels, et al. 2018. 1399 H&E-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the CAMELYON dataset. GigaScience 7, 6 (2018), giy065.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gu, H., Huang, J., Hung, L., & Chen, X. '.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2021-04-13
Volume
5
Issue
CSCW1
Pages
1-25
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3036375901
Cited by
56
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS-1850183)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
AI-assisted diagnosis, digital pathology, human-AI collaboration, tumor detection, histological slides, human-centered AI, impetus

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