Cited by 81Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

How Clinicians Perceive Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Technologies in Diagnostic Decision Making: Mixed Methods Approach

Open access
Hah, Hyeyoung, Goldin, Deana Shevit·2021·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies, AI algorithms are being embedded into various health information technologies that assist clinicians in clinical decision making. Objective: This study aimed to explore how clinicians perceive AI assistance in diagnostic decision making and suggest the paths forward for AI-human teaming for clinical decision making in health care. Methods: This study used a mixed methods approach, utilizing hierarchical linear modeling and sentiment analysis through natural language understanding techniques. Results: A total of 114 clinicians participated in online simulation surveys in 2020 and 2021. These clinicians studied family medicine and used AI algorithms to aid in patient diagnosis. Their overall sentiment toward AI-assisted diagnosis was positive and comparable with diagnoses made without the assistance of AI. However, AI-guided decision making was not congruent with the way clinicians typically made decisions in diagnosing illnesses. In a quantitative survey, clinicians reported perceiving current AI assistance as not likely to enhance diagnostic capability and negatively influenced their overall performance (β=–0.421, P=.02). Instead, clinicians’ diagnostic capabilities tended to be associated with well-known parameters, such as education, age, and daily habit of technology use on social media platforms. Conclusions: This study elucidated clinicians’ current perceptions and sentiments toward AI-enabled diagnosis. Although the sentiment was positive, the current form of AI assistance may not be linked with efficient decision making, as AI algorithms are not well aligned with subjective human reasoning in clinical diagnosis. Developers and policy makers in health could gather behavioral data from clinicians in various disciplines to help align AI algorithms with the unique subjective patterns of reasoning that humans employ in clinical diagnosis.

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 · 10.2196/33540

Cites

64 of 64 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?

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: 2

  1. [52]Canonico M De Russis L A comparison and critique of natural language understanding tools Cloud Computing 2018 2021-12-10 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Comparison-and-Critique-of-Natural-Language-Tools-Canonico-Russis/fdf8bbd6dff6201c1965f81842852cbba59fe79e
  2. [55]Raudenbush SW Bryk AS Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences) 2002 Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications, Inc

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hah, H., & Goldin, D. S.
Affiliations
Florida International University (US)
Corresponding author
Hah, Hyeyoung
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-12-16
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
e33540
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3214309531
Cited by
81
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence, AI-assisted diagnosis, clinical decision-making, clinician perceptions, diagnostic reasoning, general practice, social media use, diagnostic skills
MeSH terms
Sentiment Analysis, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Humans, Technology

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