Cited by 161Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Computer Decision Support as a Source of Interpretation Error: The Case of Electrocardiograms

Open access
Tsai, Theodore L., Fridsma, Douglas B., Gatti, Guido·2003·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect that the computer interpretation (CI) of electrocardiograms (EKGs) has on the accuracy of resident (noncardiologist) physicians reading EKGs. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled trial was conducted in a laboratory setting from February through June 2001, using a two-period crossover design with matched pairs of subjects randomly assigned to sequencing groups. MEASUREMENTS: Subjects' interpretive accuracy of discrete, cardiologist-determined EKG findings were measured as judged by a board-certified internist. RESULTS: Without the CI, subjects interpreted 48.9% (95% confidence interval, 45.0% to 52.8%) of the findings correctly. With the CI, subjects interpreted 55.4% (51.9% to 58.9%) correctly (p < 0.0001). When the CIs that agreed with the gold standard (Correct CIs) were not included, 53.1% (47.7% to 58.5%) of the findings were interpreted correctly. When the correct CI was included, accuracy increased to 68.1% (63.2% to 72.7%; p < 0.0001). When computer advice that did not agree with the gold standard (Incorrect CI) was not provided to the subjects, 56.7% (48.5% to 64.5%) of findings were interpreted correctly. Accuracy dropped to 48.3% (40.4% to 56.4%) when the incorrect computer advice was provided (p = 0.131). Subjects erroneously agreed with the incorrect CI more often when it was presented with the EKG 67.7% (57.2% to 76.7%) than when it was not 34.6% (23.8% to 47.3%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Computer decision support systems can generally improve the interpretive accuracy of internal medicine residents in reading EKGs. However, subjects were influenced significantly by incorrect advice, which tempers the overall usefulness of computer-generated advice in this and perhaps other areas.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1279

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Another explanation for increased anxiety might be that participants worry about physicians' automation bias.

    “Another explanation might be that participants worry about physicians’ automation bias, 48 that is, physicians might blindly rely on the AI-enabled system's suggestions without critically reviewing them resulting in reduced accuracy 49 and increased medical errors. 50”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsai, T. L., Fridsma, D. B., & Gatti, G.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Tsai, Theodore L.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2003-09
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
478-483
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W1869541995
Cited by
161
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (5 T15 LM/DE07059)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
computer decision support, ECG interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, internal medicine residents, clinical judgment, electrocardiographic findings
MeSH terms
Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Diagnostic Errors, Electrocardiography, Humans, Internship and Residency, Observer Variation, Cross-Over Studies, 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