ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2023
Intelligent decision support in medical triage: are people robust to biased advice?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Assessing Fall Risk: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- A scoping review of human-AI collaboration patterns and task divisions in healthcare applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Influences on trust in the use of AI-based triage-an interview study with primary healthcare professionals and patients in Sweden.Frontiers in digital health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.