ArticleScientific reports2023
Non-task expert physicians benefit from correct explainable AI advice when reviewing X-rays.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence Efficacy as a Function of Trainee Interpreter Proficiency: Lessons from a Randomized Controlled Trial.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Trial
- Care to Explain? AI Explanation Types Differentially Impact Chest Radiograph Diagnostic Performance and Physician Trust in AI.Radiology · 2024Trial
- Consistent explainable image quality assessment for medical imaging.Health information science and systems · 2026Article
- When the Algorithm Speaks First: Trust, Reliance and the Reconstruction of Clinical Metacognition.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- The Evolving Utility of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools for the Detection of Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies: From Potential to Implementation.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Factors influencing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making in medicine: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable multiple instance learning for hematologic diagnosis from peripheral blood smears.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Decision-making for ICU admission: is there a place for AI? Exploring and understanding meaning, experiences, and perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Bridging the expertise gap: how AI-assisted stroke detection levels the playing field in emergency medicine.European radiology · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.iScience · 2026Review
- RoentMod: a synthetic chest X-ray modification model to identify and correct image interpretation model shortcuts.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Explainable deep learning framework incorporating medical knowledge for insulin titration in diabetes.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Multi-Algorithm R Shiny Application for Predictive Modeling and Analytics: Case Study of Alzheimer Disease Diagnostics.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- The explainable AI dilemma under knowledge imbalance in specialist AI for glaucoma referrals in primary care.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- The human factor in explainable artificial intelligence: clinician variability in trust, reliance, and performance.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Interpretable Multiple Instance Learning for Hematologic Diagnosis from Peripheral Blood Smears.Research square · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Medicine: A Scoping Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Human-centered explainability evaluation in clinical decision-making: a critical review of the literature.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of AI support levels in clinical interpretation of traumatic pelvic radiographs.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated clinical advice is becoming more prevalent in healthcare. However, the impact of AI-generated advice on physicians' decision-making is underexplored. In this study, physicians received X-rays with correct diagnostic advice and were asked to make a diagnosis, rate the advice's quality, and judge their own confidence. We manipulated whether the advice came with or without a visual annotation on the X-rays, and whether it was labeled as coming from an AI or a human radiologist. Overall, receiving annotated advice from an AI resulted in the highest diagnostic accuracy. Physicians rated the quality of AI advice higher than human advice. We did not find a strong effect of either manipulation on participants' confidence. The magnitude of the effects varied between task experts and non-task experts, with the latter benefiting considerably from correct explainable AI advice. These findings raise important considerations for the deployment of diagnostic advice in healthcare.
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.