Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33585029›Full record

ArticleHealth information science and systems2021

Studying human-AI collaboration protocols: the case of the Kasparov's law in radiological double reading.

Federico Cabitza, Andrea Campagner, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Warning people about the risk of AI error mitigates human acquisition of AI bias.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Federico CabitzaUniversità degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4065-3415
Andrea CampagnerUniversità degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy.
Luca Maria SconfienzaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Collective intelligenceDouble readingHybrid intelligenceInteraction protocolsKasparov’s Law

Identifiers

PMID33585029
PMCPMC7864624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.