Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40875775›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Exploring the risks of over-reliance on AI in diagnostic pathology. What lessons can be learned to support the training of young pathologists?

Yaëlle Bellahsen-Harrar, Mélanie Lubrano, Charles Lépine, Aurélie Beaufrère, Claire Bocciarelli, Anaïs Brunet, Elise Decroix, Franck Neil El-Sissy, Bettina Fabiani, Aurélien Morini and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

13 authors.

Yaëlle Bellahsen-HarrarDepartment of Pathology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4011-2755
Mélanie LubranoCentre for Computational Biology (CBIO), Mines Paris, PSL University, Paris, France.
Charles LépineDepartment of Pathology, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7062-5821
Aurélie BeaufrèreCentre for Computational Biology (CBIO), Mines Paris, PSL University, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0206-058X
Claire BocciarelliDepartment of Pathology, CHRU Brest, Brest, France.
Anaïs BrunetDepartment of Pathology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, APHP, Créteil, France.
Elise DecroixDepartment of Pathology, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0911-9803
Franck Neil El-SissyDepartment of Pathology, Hôpital Lariboisière, APHP, Paris, France.
Bettina FabianiTribun Health, Paris, France.
Aurélien MoriniDepartment of Pathology, Hôpital Lariboisière, APHP, Paris, France.
Cyprien TilmantDepartment of Pathology, Groupement des Hôpitaux de l'Institut Catholique de Lille, Lille, France.
Thomas WalterCentre for Computational Biology (CBIO), Mines Paris, PSL University, Paris, France.
Cécile BadoualDepartment of Pathology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms into pathology practice presents both opportunities and challenges. Although it can improve accuracy and inter-rater reliability, it is not infallible and can produce erroneous diagnoses, hence the need for pathologists to always check predictions. This critical judgment is particularly important when algorithm errors could lead to high-impact negative clinical outcomes, such as missing an invasive carcinoma. However, the influence of AI tools on pathologists' decision-making is not well explored. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a previously developed AI tool on the diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability among pathologists, while assessing whether pathologists maintain independent judgment of AI predictions. Eight pathologists from different hospitals and with varying levels of experience, participated in the study. Each of them reviewed 115 slides of laryngeal biopsies, including benign epithelium, low-grade and high-grade dysplasia, and invasive squamous carcinomas. The study compared diagnostic outcomes with and without AI assistance. The reference labels were established by an expert's double-blind review. Results show that assisted pathologists had a higher accuracy for high-grade dysplasia, invasive carcinoma and improved inter-rater reliability. However, cases of over-reliance on AI have been observed, resulting in the omission of correctly diagnosed invasive carcinomas during the unassisted examination. The false predictions on these carcinoma slides were labeled with a low confidence score, which was not considered by the less experienced pathologists, showing the risk that they would follow the AI prediction without enough critical judgment or expertise. Our study emphasizes the potential over-reliance of pathologists on AI models and the potential harmful consequences, even with the advancement of powerful algorithms. The integration of confidence scores and the education of pathologists to use this tool could help to optimize the safe integration of AI into pathology practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePathologistsPathology, ClinicalAlgorithmsDiagnostic ErrorsHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID40875775
PMCPMC12393786

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.