Cited by 422Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence

Jussupow, Ekaterina, Spohrer, Kai, Heinzl, Armin, Gawlitza, Joshua·2021·Information Systems Research

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

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2020.0980

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”
  • 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.”

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