ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
Quantifying the impact of AI recommendations with explanations on prescription decision making.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Hierarchical Machine Learning-Based Framework for Clinical Decision Support in Foot Orthosis Prescription: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Enhancing Physician Resilience to Generative AI: Multilevel Framework for Shared Authority, Verification, and Skill Preservation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Adaptive yet suboptimal integration of advice in decision-making.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- 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
- A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.iScience · 2026Review
- An Explanation User Interface for Artificial Intelligence-Supported Mechanical Ventilation Optimization for Clinicians: User-Centered Design and Formative Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: a position paper by the Italian Society of Internal Medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- A generative two-stage semantic intermediary framework for explainable mental health early warning in higher education.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Applications of artificial intelligence in non-small cell lung cancer: from precision diagnosis to personalized prognosis and therapy.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- The human factor in explainable artificial intelligence: clinician variability in trust, reliance, and performance.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of SHAP and clinician friendly explanations reveals effects on clinical decision behaviour.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Medicine: A Scoping Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Assessing the impact of AI on physician decision-making for mental health treatment in primary care.Npj mental health research · 2025Article
- Advantages and limitations of large language models for antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Review
- Prioritizing Trust in Podiatrists' Preference for AI in Supportive Roles Over Diagnostic Roles in Health Care: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Safety of human-AI cooperative decision-making within intensive care: A physical simulation study.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience: Transformative Synergies in Brain Research and Clinical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Healthcare AI, explainability, and the human-machine relationship: a (not so) novel practical challenge.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Who moved my scan? Early adopter experiences with pre- and post-market healthcare AI regulation challenges.Frontiers in 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The influence of AI recommendations on physician behaviour remains poorly characterised. We assess how clinicians' decisions may be influenced by additional information more broadly, and how this influence can be modified by either the source of the information (human peers or AI) and the presence or absence of an AI explanation (XAI, here using simple feature importance). We used a modified between-subjects design where intensive care doctors (N = 86) were presented on a computer for each of 16 trials with a patient case and prompted to prescribe continuous values for two drugs. We used a multi-factorial experimental design with four arms, where each clinician experienced all four arms on different subsets of our 24 patients. The four arms were (i) baseline (control), (ii) peer human clinician scenario showing what doses had been prescribed by other doctors, (iii) AI suggestion and (iv) XAI suggestion. We found that additional information (peer, AI or XAI) had a strong influence on prescriptions (significantly for AI, not so for peers) but simple XAI did not have higher influence than AI alone. There was no correlation between attitudes to AI or clinical experience on the AI-supported decisions and nor was there correlation between what doctors self-reported about how useful they found the XAI and whether the XAI actually influenced their prescriptions. Our findings suggest that the marginal impact of simple XAI was low in this setting and we also cast doubt on the utility of self-reports as a valid metric for assessing XAI in clinical experts.
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.