ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
Artificial intelligence in medicine: a scoping review of the risk of deskilling and loss of expertise among physicians.
Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice and hospitals].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Navigating the Artificial Intelligence Revolution in Clinical Neurology: A New Multidisciplinary Task Force Within the European Academy of Neurology.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Induced Deskilling in Interventional Pulmonology: An International Cross-Sectional Survey on Risk Perception and Mitigation Strategies.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2026Observational
- Artificial Intelligence and Clinician Burnout in the United States: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Beyond Algorithmic Oversight: Internal Morality of Medicine and Meaningful Human Control in AI-Assisted Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI-induced deskilling in orthopedic surgery: Preserving judgment in the age of intelligent decision support.SICOT-J · 2026Article
- Rethinking AI in clinical decision support: a framework for reciprocal human-AI interaction.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The Long road to AI-physician partnership starts with learners: a map for AI in medical education.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in clinical practice, particularly in radiology, pathology, endoscopy, and decision support. While these tools improve efficiency and accuracy, concerns have arisen about deskilling-the erosion of physicians' expertise due to reliance on automation. Materials and methods: We conducted a narrative review of empirical studies, randomized trials, and theoretical analyses published up to August 2025. The focus was on quantitative evidence of decreased performance following AI exposure, automation bias, and structural changes in training environments. Sources included PubMed, Embase, and gray literature. Results: Evidence of clinical deskilling, though scarce, is consistent across specialties. In a multicenter randomized trial in colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate (ADR) dropped significantly from 28.4% to 22.4% when endoscopists reverted to non-AI procedures after repeated AI use, while ADR remained stable with AI assistance (25.3%). In radiology, a controlled study of 27 breast imaging radiologists showed that erroneous AI prompts increased false-positive recalls by up to 12%, even among experienced readers. In computational pathology, experimental web-based tasks revealed that over 30% of participants reversed correct initial diagnoses when exposed to incorrect AI suggestions under time constraints. Structural deskilling has been reported in cytology following the UK's transition to human papillomavirus primary screening, leading to an 80%-85% reduction in case volumes and consolidation of laboratories from 45 to 8 centers, with major implications for training capacity. Across domains, analyses confirm the presence of automation bias and highlight risks of diminished independent diagnostic reasoning. Conclusions: Although limited in number, empirical studies consistently demonstrate that AI can inadvertently impair physicians' performance or reduce opportunities for skill maintenance. Quantitative evidence of decreased diagnostic accuracy, error propagation, and training erosion underscores the need for longitudinal monitoring, adaptive curricula, and regulatory frameworks to mitigate deskilling. Safeguarding clinical expertise should be considered a central component of AI safety and resilience in medicine.
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.