Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly support physicians in diagnostic decisions, but they are not without errors and biases. Failure to detect those may result in wrong diagnoses and medical errors. Compared with rule-based systems, however, these systems are less transparent and their errors less predictable. Thus, it is difficult, yet critical, for physicians to carefully evaluate AI advice. This study uncovers the cognitive challenges that medical decision makers face when they receive potentially incorrect advice from AI-based diagnosis systems and must decide whether to follow or reject it. In experiments with 68 novice and 12 experienced physicians, novice physicians with and without clinical experience as well as experienced radiologists made more inaccurate diagnosis decisions when provided with incorrect AI advice than without advice at all. We elicit five decision-making patterns and show that wrong diagnostic decisions often result from shortcomings in utilizing metacognitions related to decision makers’ own reasoning (self-monitoring) and metacognitions related to the AI-based system (system monitoring). As a result, physicians fall for decisions based on beliefs rather than actual data or engage in unsuitably superficial evaluation of the AI advice. Our study has implications for the training of physicians and spotlights the crucial role of human actors in compensating for AI errors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The lack of transparency in AI-based and complex CDSS can impact trust between clinicians and the system and may even lead to doubting the system's output.
“This can impact trust between clinicians and the system and may even lead to doubting the system’s output [233].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [233]
The lack of transparency in AI-based and complex CDSS compared to rule-based systems often makes their errors harder for clinicians to predict and understand.
“Additionally, the lack of transparency in AI-based and complex CDSS compared to rule-based systems often makes their errors harder for clinicians to predict and understand.”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [233]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 67 · Cited by 422
- Authors
- Jussupow, E., Spohrer, K., Heinzl, A., & Gawlitza, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Mannheim (DE)
- TUM Klinikum (DE)
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 713-735
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W3082837871
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 115 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 12.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in healthcare, diagnostic decision-making, physician judgment, metacognition, self-monitoring, system monitoring, medical errors, radiologists, decision-making patterns, physician training
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