Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36947701›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2023

Intelligent decision support in medical triage: are people robust to biased advice?

Birgit van der Stigchel, Karel van den Bosch, Jurriaan van Diggelen, Pim Haselager

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Birgit van der StigchelTNO, Human Machine Teaming, Soesterberg, NL, The Netherlands.
Karel van den BoschTNO, Human Machine Teaming, Soesterberg, NL, The Netherlands.
Jurriaan van DiggelenTNO, Human Machine Teaming, Soesterberg, NL, The Netherlands.
Pim HaselagerDonders Centre for Neuroscience, Nijmegen, Gelderland, NL, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntelligent artificial agents ('agents') have emerged in various domains of human society (healthcare, legal, social). Since using intelligent agents can lead to biases, a common proposed solution is to keep the human in the loop. Will this be enough to ensure unbiased decision making?

methodsTo address this question, an experimental testbed was developed in which a human participant and an agent collaboratively conduct triage on patients during a pandemic crisis. The agent uses data to support the human by providing advice and extra information about the patients. In one condition, the agent provided sound advice; the agent in the other condition gave biased advice. The research question was whether participants neutralized bias from the biased artificial agent.

resultsAlthough it was an exploratory study, the data suggest that human participants may not be sufficiently in control to correct the agent's bias.

conclusionsThis research shows how important it is to design and test for human control in concrete human-machine collaboration contexts. It suggests that insufficient human control can potentially result in people being unable to detect biases in machines and thus unable to prevent machine biases from affecting decisions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalTriageHumansemergency careethicshealth intelligence

Identifiers

PMID36947701
PMCPMC10470333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.