Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Compliance with medical recommendations depending on the use of artificial intelligence as a diagnostic method.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Potentiality of algorithms and artificial intelligence adoption to improve medication management in primary care: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
- Dissecting medical referrals in health services: role of physician professional networks.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Considerations for the Adoption of Digital Algorithms and Cardiovascular Decision-Support Tools in Clinical Practice.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2026Review
- Psychosocial determinants of anti-VEGF treatment adherence in AMD patients: optimization of one-stop intravitreal injection service model.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring patient and clinician opinions, perspectives and acceptance of the use of artificial intelligence in the histological diagnosis of prostate cancer.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Human-centered design of a health recommender system for orthopaedic shoulder treatment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Article
- Human-centered Design of a Health Recommender System for Orthopaedic Shoulder Treatment.Research square · 2024Article
- Article
- Quality, Usability, and Effectiveness of mHealth Apps and the Role of Artificial Intelligence: Current Scenario and Challenges.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Precision Medicine: A New Frontier for the Treatment of Brain Tumors.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Artificial intelligence in (gastrointestinal) healthcare: patients' and physicians' perspectives.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.