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.
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.
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.
AI Reliance in Diagnostic Radiology Among Intern Doctors in Palestine: A Triple-Arm, Triple-Blind, Parallel-Design Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Classification of Emergency Diagnosis-Sensitive Conditions Among Medicare Beneficiaries.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- From Executor to Orchestrator: The Pharmacology Scientist in the Age of Agentic AI.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Diagnostic reasoning with and without AI: automation bias in pre-clerkship medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Legal and ethical responsibility for AI-assisted diagnostic and referral errors: a scoping review of comparative approaches with implications for Saudi healthcare.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Educational Frameworks for Diagnostic Decision-Making in AI-Enhanced Head and Neck Pathology.Head and neck pathology · 2026Review
- Beyond translation: a patient-centered research agenda for artificial intelligence interpreter services in healthcare.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- From Sensing to Sense-Making: A Framework for On-Person Intelligence with Wearable Biosensors and Edge LLMs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A paradigm shift toward full-cycle management of atrial fibrillation: integrating digital twins and artificial intelligence.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in advanced endoscopic imaging: transforming optical diagnosis in gastroenterology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
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
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
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.