Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37328465›Full record

Trial reportTranslational psychiatry2023

Out with AI, in with the psychiatrist: a preference for human-derived clinical decision support in depression care.

Marta M Maslej, Stefan Kloiber, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Joanna Yu, Sean L Hill

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Translational psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Beyond Detection: Towards Actionable Sensing Research in Clinical Mental Healthcare.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

5 authors.

Marta M MaslejKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. marta.maslej@camh.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-6393-5095
Stefan KloiberCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6838-4114
Marzyeh GhassemiInstitute for Medical Engineering & Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joanna YuKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sean L HillKrembil Centre for Neuroinformatics, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8055-860X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are enabling the development of clinical support tools (CSTs) in psychiatry to facilitate the review of patient data and inform clinical care. To promote their successful integration and prevent over-reliance, it is important to understand how psychiatrists will respond to information provided by AI-based CSTs, particularly if it is incorrect. We conducted an experiment to examine psychiatrists' perceptions of AI-based CSTs for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to determine whether perceptions interacted with the quality of CST information. Eighty-three psychiatrists read clinical notes about a hypothetical patient with MDD and reviewed two CSTs embedded within a single dashboard: the note's summary and a treatment recommendation. Psychiatrists were randomised to believe the source of CSTs was either AI or another psychiatrist, and across four notes, CSTs provided either correct or incorrect information. Psychiatrists rated the CSTs on various attributes. Ratings for note summaries were less favourable when psychiatrists believed the notes were generated with AI as compared to another psychiatrist, regardless of whether the notes provided correct or incorrect information. A smaller preference for psychiatrist-generated information emerged in ratings of attributes that reflected the summary's accuracy or its inclusion of important information from the full clinical note. Ratings for treatment recommendations were also less favourable when their perceived source was AI, but only when recommendations were correct. There was little evidence that clinical expertise or familiarity with AI impacted results. These findings suggest that psychiatrists prefer human-derived CSTs. This preference was less pronounced for ratings that may have prompted a deeper review of CST information (i.e. a comparison with the full clinical note to evaluate the summary's accuracy or completeness, assessing an incorrect treatment recommendation), suggesting a role of heuristics. Future work should explore other contributing factors and downstream implications for integrating AI into psychiatric care.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMajor Depressive DisorderPsychiatryArtificial IntelligenceDepressionHumans

Identifiers

PMID37328465
PMCPMC10275935

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.