ArticleHealth information science and systems2021
Studying human-AI collaboration protocols: the case of the Kasparov's law in radiological double reading.
Article in Health information science and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- From testbeds to high-stakes work: a review of Human-AI teaming domains and teaming factors.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative accuracy of artificial intelligence versus manual interpretation in detecting pulmonary hypertension across chest imaging modalities: a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Human-AI collaboration in large language model-assisted brain MRI differential diagnosis: a usability study.European radiology · 2025Trial
- Human-AI Collaboration in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A scoping review of human-AI collaboration patterns and task divisions in healthcare applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Warning people about the risk of AI error mitigates human acquisition of AI bias.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- From human teams to hybrid intelligence teams: identifying, characterizing, and evaluating foundational quality attributes.Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems · 2026Article
- Machine learning in dentistry and oral surgery: charting the course with bibliometric insights.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- A vision of human-AI collaboration for enhanced biological collection curation and research.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Enhancing Radiologist Productivity with Artificial Intelligence in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- On prediction-modelers and decision-makers: why fairness requires more than a fair prediction model.AI & society · 2025Article
- Second opinion machine learning for fast-track pathway assignment in hip and knee replacement surgery: the use of patient-reported outcome measures.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Review
- Unity Is Intelligence: A Collective Intelligence Experiment on ECG Reading to Improve Diagnostic Performance in Cardiology.Journal of Intelligence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe integration of Artificial Intelligence into medical practices has recently been advocated for the promise to bring increased efficiency and effectiveness to these practices. Nonetheless, little research has so far been aimed at understanding the best human-AI interaction protocols in collaborative tasks, even in currently more viable settings, like independent double-reading screening tasks.
methodsTo this aim, we report about a retrospective case-control study, involving 12 board-certified radiologists, in the detection of knee lesions by means of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, in which we simulated the serial combination of two Deep Learning models with humans in eight double-reading protocols. Inspired by the so-called Kasparov's Laws, we investigate whether the combination of humans and AI models could achieve better performance than AI models alone, and whether weak reader, when supported by fit-for-use interaction protocols, could out-perform stronger readers.
resultsWe discuss two main findings: groups of humans who perform significantly worse than a state-of-the-art AI can significantly outperform it if their judgements are aggregated by majority voting (in concordance with the first part of the Kasparov's law); small ensembles of significantly weaker readers can significantly outperform teams of stronger readers, supported by the same computational tool, when the judgments of the former ones are combined within "fit-for-use" protocols (in concordance with the second part of the Kasparov's law).
conclusionOur study shows that good interaction protocols can guarantee improved decision performance that easily surpasses the performance of individual agents, even of realistic super-human AI systems. This finding highlights the importance of focusing on how to guarantee better co-operation within human-AI teams, so to enable safer and more human sustainable care practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.