Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42505098›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026

Agentic Loafing: An AI Decision Delegation Risk.

Helmi Issa, Fabio James Petani, Dejan Glavas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Helmi IssaESSCA School of Management, Angers, France.
Fabio James PetaniUniversité Bourgogne Europe, Burgundy School of Business, CEREN EA 7477, Dijon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7289-5462
Dejan GlavasESSCA School of Management, Angers, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3168-2222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly making decisions in healthcare, not just supporting them. This research introduces "agentic loafing" to describe the intentional yet unexamined delegation of decision-making authority from clinicians to AI systems. Using netnography of professional podcasts and secondary analysis of gray literature, this study uncovers three institutional drivers that normalize AI delegation: performance culture conformity, structural isolation of responsibility, and legitimization through quantification. These drivers invert classical delegation theory. Where traditional delegation assumes monitoring, punishment, and shared objectives, AI delegation thrives in their absence. This inversion produces what this research terms "risk evaporation": the systematic disappearance of accountability when AI-assisted decisions fail, leaving no single party responsible. To help organizations manage this risk, this research also develops a "preliminary" diagnostic tool, with its intersectional interventions, that transforms "agentic loafing" from an unmanaged bet into a measurable risk score. From this, a critical implication follows for risk analysis: the most dangerous AI systems are not those that fail unpredictably but those that function just reliably enough to quietly erode human judgment without ever triggering an alarm.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision MakingHumansRiskRisk AssessmentAIdecision delegationhealthcarenetnography

Identifiers

PMID42505098
PMCPMC13403921

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.