Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34362359›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Compliance with medical recommendations depending on the use of artificial intelligence as a diagnostic method.

Michaela Soellner, Joerg Koenigstorfer

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patients' experiences and attitudes toward the use of real-time artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michaela SoellnerChair of Sport and Health Management, Technical University of Munich, Campus D - Uptown Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, 80992, Munich, Germany.
Joerg KoenigstorferChair of Sport and Health Management, Technical University of Munich, Campus D - Uptown Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, 80992, Munich, Germany. joerg.koenigstorfer@tum.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6159-2861
Technical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced analytics, such as artificial intelligence (AI), increasingly gain relevance in medicine. However, patients' responses to the involvement of AI in the care process remains largely unclear. The study aims to explore whether individuals were more likely to follow a recommendation when a physician used AI in the diagnostic process considering a highly (vs. less) severe disease compared to when the physician did not use AI or when AI fully replaced the physician.

methodsParticipants from the USA (n = 452) were randomly assigned to a hypothetical scenario where they imagined that they received a treatment recommendation after a skin cancer diagnosis (high vs. low severity) from a physician, a physician using AI, or an automated AI tool. They then indicated their intention to follow the recommendation. Regression analyses were used to test hypotheses. Beta coefficients (ß) describe the nature and strength of relationships between predictors and outcome variables; confidence intervals [CI] excluding zero indicate significant mediation effects.

resultsThe total effects reveal the inferiority of automated AI (ß = .47, p = .001 vs. physician; ß = .49, p = .001 vs. physician using AI). Two pathways increase intention to follow the recommendation. When a physician performs the assessment (vs. automated AI), the perception that the physician is real and present (a concept called social presence) is high, which increases intention to follow the recommendation (ß = .22, 95% CI [.09; 0.39]). When AI performs the assessment (vs. physician only), perceived innovativeness of the method is high, which increases intention to follow the recommendation (ß = .15, 95% CI [- .28; - .04]). When physicians use AI, social presence does not decrease and perceived innovativeness increases.

conclusionPairing AI with a physician in medical diagnosis and treatment in a hypothetical scenario using topical therapy and oral medication as treatment recommendations leads to a higher intention to follow the recommendation than AI on its own. The findings might help develop practice guidelines for cases where AI involvement benefits outweigh risks, such as using AI in pathology and radiology, to enable augmented human intelligence and inform physicians about diagnoses and treatments.

Indexed as

MedicinePhysiciansArtificial IntelligenceHumansIntelligencePatient ComplianceArtificial intelligenceComplianceDiagnostic methods

Identifiers

PMID34362359
PMCPMC8344186
OpenAlexW3192686185

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.