ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Increasing transparency of computer-aided detection impairs decision-making in visual search.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Explainable artificial intelligence in dental imaging: a systematic review of interpretability and the current state of trust evidence.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Psychophysiological markers of trust in automation: insights from ERP responses in a modified flanker task.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Comprehensive recommendations for the implementation of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a narrative review on facilitators and barriers.BMJ open quality · 2026Review
- Intrinsic motivation and false feedback reduce the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to changes in healthcare. Government and regulatory bodies have advocated the need for transparency in AI systems with recommendations to provide users with more details about AI accuracy and how AI systems work. However, increased transparency could lead to negative outcomes if humans become overreliant on the technology. This study investigated how changes in AI transparency affected human decision-making in a medical-screening visual search task. Transparency was manipulated by either giving or withholding knowledge about the accuracy of an 'AI system'. We tested performance in seven simulated lab mammography tasks, in which observers searched for a cancer which could be correctly or incorrectly flagged by computer-aided detection (CAD) 'AI prompts'. Across tasks, the CAD systems varied in accuracy. In the 'transparent' condition, participants were told the accuracy of the CAD system, in the 'not transparent' condition, they were not. The results showed that increasing CAD transparency impaired task performance, producing an increase in false alarms, decreased sensitivity, an increase in recall rate, and a decrease in positive predictive value. Along with increasing investment in AI, this research shows that it is important to investigate how transparency of AI systems affect human decision-making. Increased transparency may lead to overtrust in AI systems, which can impact clinical outcomes.
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.