ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Acceptable accuracy for medical AI: a survey of physicians and the general population in Sweden.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the lowest sensitivity and specificity that physicians and the general population consider acceptable for medical artificial intelligence (AI), relative to current human performance.
methodsIn a nationwide, cross-sectional survey in Sweden, 2025, random samples of 500 physicians and 500 adults from the general population were mailed a questionnaire presenting three vignettes (chest pain triage, sore throat triage, ECG myocardial infarction detection) with the corresponding human performance. Participants reported the maximum number of cases an AI should be allowed to miss or over-refer.
resultsResponse rates were 45% among physicians and 31% in the general population. Both groups demanded higher AI accuracy than the human benchmark for all cases. In the chest pain triage vignette, the nurse correctly referred 84 of 100 true emergencies; physicians required the AI to correctly refer 11 additional patients (95% sensitivity) and the general population demanded referral of 16 additional patients (100% sensitivity) (p<0.001 for both groups). Among 100 patients not requiring referral, the nurse would mistakenly refer 66. Both groups required the AI to reduce unnecessary referrals by 16 (50% specificity) (p<0.001). A similar pattern was observed in the other vignettes. DISCUSSION: The accuracy thresholds required by the respondents exceed the performance of many existing systems, although emerging AI research shows promise in narrowing the gap.
conclusionPhysicians and the general population require medical AI systems to outperform human clinicians. When implementing AI in healthcare settings, early engagement with both groups may be necessary to align expectations with real-world system performance.
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.