Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41890350›Full record

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.

Pierre E Heudel, H Crochet, Q Filori, T Bachelot, J Y Blay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

5 authors.

Pierre E HeudelMedical Oncology Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
H CrochetInformation Systems and Data Management Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
Q FiloriInformation Systems and Data Management Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
T BachelotMedical Oncology Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
J Y BlayMedical Oncology Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligenceautomation biasclinical deskillingmedical expertise erosion

Identifiers

PMID41890350
PMCPMC13015734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.