ArticleNature medicine2024
Influence of believed AI involvement on the perception of digital medical advice.
Article in Nature medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 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
55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models for primary care ophthalmic education: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Perceptions of AI-generated informational texts and effects of the source: An online experiment.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Article
- Influence of physician and consumer demographics on AI-use penalties in primary care: a vignette-based study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Building health-literate artificial intelligence.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Large Language Models as a New Tool for Therapists in Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Blinded Clinician Rating Pilot Experiment.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Effects of Type and Timing of Clinician-Facing AI Support on Patient Trust in Medical Consultations: 2 Vignette Experiments.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Ethics of artificial intelligence prognostication in palliative care: perspectives from a national survey of palliative care physicians.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Article
- User Acceptability and Adoption of AI-Generated Lifestyle Intervention Recommendations: Scoping Review and Theoretical Integration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Advertising and large language models: a new frontier influencing medical practice.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- AI in variant analysis: fast track to genetic diagnoses.Human genetics · 2026Review
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Trusting Generative AI for Health Advice: Preregistered Survey Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Healthcare exceptionalism in patient perspectives on AI: implications for policy and practice.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Where Evidence-Based Medicine Meets AI: Promise, Pitfalls, and Practice.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- [Large language models as a communication and organizational infrastructure in urology: evidence, limitations, and clinical responsibility].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Multimodal Wearable Biosensing Meets Multidomain AI: A Pathway to Decentralized Healthcare.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in genomic medicine: dispelling three myths.NPJ genomic medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Unlikely Storyteller: Leveraging Narrative-Based Communication in LLM-Generated Medical Advice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models offer novel opportunities to seek digital medical advice. While previous research primarily addressed the performance of such artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools, public perception of these advancements received little attention. In two preregistered studies (n = 2,280), we presented participants with scenarios of patients obtaining medical advice. All participants received identical information, but we manipulated the putative source of this advice ('AI', 'human physician', 'human + AI'). 'AI'- and 'human + AI'-labeled advice was evaluated as significantly less reliable and less empathetic compared with 'human'-labeled advice. Moreover, participants indicated lower willingness to follow the advice when AI was believed to be involved in advice generation. Our findings point toward an anti-AI bias when receiving digital medical advice, even when AI is supposedly supervised by physicians. Given the tremendous potential of AI for medicine, elucidating ways to counteract this bias should be an important objective of future research.
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.