ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
AI-supported clinical decision-making: in silico simulation of physician-AI interactions.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: While the integration of modern AI systems in clinical practice is currently in the process of transforming how medicine is being practiced, the focus of most research activities lies on AI-associated efficacy and safety. However, the interplay between human agents and AI systems will equally shape the actual impact of such systems. Methods: This study simulated human decision-making using 27 agents characterized by varying levels of competence, certainty, and trust. Agents completed binary and three-option decision tasks, both with and without AI assistance. AI models varied in competence (0.3-0.9) and, in some simulations, included confidence signals to influence human trust dynamically. Each scenario involved 10,000 simulated decisions per agent. In AI-assisted conditions, decisions were modulated by the agent's baseline trust and, in the conditional trust setting, the AI's expressed confidence. Results: AI support significantly improved decision accuracy for most agents, especially those with high competence but low certainty. In binary tasks, agents showed up to 150% relative improvement in decision accuracy with AI competence ≥0.6. In three-option tasks, even lower-performing AI (e.g., 0.4 competence) enhanced decision results. Conditional trust simulations showed further gains, particularly among agents with moderate baseline trust, as dynamic trust adjustments based on AI confidence reduced over-reliance on poor AI recommendations. Discussion: Results demonstrate that AI assistance, particularly when paired with confidence calibration, enhances human decision-making, especially for uncertain or moderately skilled users. However, over-trusting low-competence AI can impair outcomes for high-performing agents. Tailored AI-human collaboration strategies are essential for optimizing clinical decision support.
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.