ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Factors influencing the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making in medicine: a scoping review.
Article 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. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Promises and Perils of Clinical Decision Support Artificial Intelligence.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Explainability in context: calibrating appropriate trust and reliance in artificial intelligence.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastric cancer research: a bibliometric and visualized analysis from 1993 to 2026.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesResearch on artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision-support (AI-CDS) systems has returned mixed results. Sometimes providing AI-CDS to a clinician will improve decision-making performance, sometimes it will not, and it is not always clear why. This scoping review seeks to clarify existing evidence by identifying clinician-level and technology design factors that impact the effectiveness of AI-assisted decision-making in medicine. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase for peer-reviewed papers that studied factors impacting the effectiveness of AI-CDS. We identified the factors studied and their impact on 3 outcomes: clinicians' attitudes toward AI, their decisions (eg, acceptance rate of AI recommendations), and their performance when utilizing AI-CDS.
resultsWe retrieved 5850 articles and included 45. Four clinician-level and technology design factors were commonly studied. Expert clinicians may benefit less from AI-CDS than nonexperts, with some mixed results. Explainable AI increased clinicians' trust, but could also increase trust in incorrect AI recommendations, potentially harming human-AI collaborative performance. Clinicians' baseline attitudes toward AI predict their acceptance rates of AI recommendations. Of the 3 outcomes of interest, human-AI collaborative performance was most commonly assessed. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionFew factors have been studied for their impact on the effectiveness of AI-CDS. Due to conflicting outcomes between studies, we recommend future work should leverage the concept of "appropriate trust" to facilitate more robust research on AI-CDS, aiming not to increase overall trust in or acceptance of AI but to ensure that clinicians accept AI recommendations only when trust in AI is warranted.
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.