Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41101774›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026

Artificial intelligence and computer-aided diagnosis in diagnostic decisions: 5 questions for medical informatics and human-computer interface research.

Tad T Brunyé, Stephen R Mitroff, Joann G Elmore

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07558746 (AI Reliance in Diagnostic Radiology Among Intern Doctors in Palestine), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07558746 naenrolling by invitationnot on this map

AI Reliance in Diagnostic Radiology Among Intern Doctors in Palestine: A Triple-Arm, Triple-Blind, Parallel-Design Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAl-Quds UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled159ConditionsRadiology, Internship and Residency, AI (Artificial Intelligence)ArmsAI prompt (Correct), AI prompt (Incorrect)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Tad T BrunyéCenter for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, United States.
Stephen R MitroffDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20006, United States.
Joann G ElmoreDepartment of Medicine and the National Clinician Scholar Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7311-6835

Funding

Accuracy of Breast Pathology and the Impact of Double ReadingR01CA140560 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2009 to 2013
$3.3M
Reader Accuracy in Pathology Interpretation and Diagnosis: Perception and Cognition (RAPID-PC)R01CA225585 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
Digital Pathology_Accuracy Viewing Behavior and Image CharacterizationR01CA172343 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHAPIRO, LINDA, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
Optimizing the Human-Computer Interaction in Pathology: Understanding the Impact of Computer-Aided Diagnosis Tools on Pathologists' Interpretive PerformanceR01CA288824 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI JOANN G ELMORE, Kathleen F. Kerr · 2025 to 2026
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140560NCI NIH HHS R01 CA172343NCI NIH HHS R01 CA225585NCI NIH HHS R01 CA288824NIH HHSNIH HHS R01 CA140560NIH HHS R01 CA172343NIH HHS R01 CA225585NIH HHS R01 CA288824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform medical informatics by supporting clinical decision-making, reducing diagnostic errors, and improving workflows and efficiency. However, successful integration of AI-based decision support systems depends on careful consideration of human-AI collaboration, trust, skill maintenance, and automation bias. This work proposes five central questions to guide future research in medical informatics and human-computer interface (HCI). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe focus on AI-based clinical decision support systems, including computer vision algorithms for medical imaging (radiology, pathology), natural language processing for structured and unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data, and rule-based systems. Relevant data modalities include clinician-acquired images, EHR text, and increasingly, patient-generated content in telehealth contexts. We review existing evidence regarding diagnostic errors across specialties, the effectiveness and risks of AI tools in reducing perceptual and interpretive errors, and the human factors influencing diagnostic decision-making in AI-enabled contexts. We synthesize insights from medicine, cognitive science, and HCI to identify gaps in knowledge and propose five key questions for continued research.

resultsDiagnostic errors remain common across medicine, with AI offering potential to reduce both perceptual and interpretive errors. However, the impact of AI depends critically on how and when information is presented. Studies indicate that delayed or toggleable cues may outperform immediate ones, but attentional capture, overreliance, and bias remain significant risks. Explainable AI provides transparency but can also bias decisions. Long-term reliance on AI may erode clinician skills, particularly for trainees and in low-prevalence contexts. Historical failures of computer-aided diagnosis in mammography highlight these challenges. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionEffective AI integration requires human-centered and adaptive design. Five central research questions address: (1) what type and format of information AI should provide; (2) when information should be presented; (3) how explainable AI affects diagnostic decisions; (4) how AI influences automation bias and complacency; and (5) the risks of skill decay due to reliance on AI. Each question underscores the importance of balancing efficiency, accuracy, and clinician expertise while mitigating bias and skill degradation. AI holds promise for improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, but realizing its potential requires post-deployment evaluation, equitable access, clinician oversight, and targeted training. AI must complement, rather than replace, human expertise, ensuring safe, effective, and sustainable integration into diagnostic decision-making. Addressing these challenges proactively can maximize AI's potential across healthcare and other high-stakes domains.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedUser-Computer InterfaceAlgorithmsDiagnostic ErrorsElectronic Health RecordsHumansMedical InformaticsNatural Language Processingartificial intelligencemedical decision-makingmedical informaticsresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID41101774
PMCPMC12844592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.