Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726100›Full record

ArticlePatterns (New York, N.Y.)2026

Confidence-weighted integration of human and machine judgments for superior decision-making.

Felipe Yáñez, Xiaoliang Luo, Omar Valerio Minero, Bradley C Love

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Felipe YáñezMax Planck Institute for Neurobiology of Behavior - caesar, Bonn, Germany.
Xiaoliang LuoDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Omar Valerio MineroMax Planck Institute for Neurobiology of Behavior - caesar, Bonn, Germany.
Bradley C LoveLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can surpass humans in certain forecasting tasks. What role does this leave for humans in the overall decision process? One possibility is that humans, despite performing worse than LLMs, can still add value when teamed with them. A human and machine team can surpass each individual teammate when team members' confidence is well calibrated and team members diverge in which tasks they find difficult (i.e., calibration and diversity are needed). We simplified and extended a Bayesian approach to combining judgments using a logistic regression framework that integrates confidence-weighted judgments for any number of team members. Using this straightforward method, we demonstrated its effectiveness in both image classification and neuroscience forecasting tasks. Combining human judgments with one or more machines consistently improved overall team performance. Our hope is that this simple and effective strategy for integrating the judgments of humans and machines will lead to productive collaborations.

Indexed as

complementarityconfidence calibrationdecision makinghuman-AI collaborationlarge language modelsneuroscienceobject recognitionteaming

Identifiers

PMID41726100
PMCPMC12921503

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.